SYNOPSIS PAPISMI, THAT IS, A GENERAL VIEW OF PAPISTRY; wherein the whole mystery of iniquity, and sum of Antichristian doctrine is set down, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with An Antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an Antidotum or counterpoison out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylon's filthy cup of abominations: Divided into three books or Centuries, that is, so many hundreds of Popish heresies and errors. 1. COR. 11.9. There must be heresies, that they which are approved amongst you might be known. TITUS. 3.10. A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. AUG. DE VERA RELIG. CAP. 6. Ecclesia Catholica utitur gentibus ad materiam operationis suae, haereticis ad probationem doctrinae suae, schismaticis ad documentum stabilitatis suae: alios invitat, alios excludit, alios relinquit, omnibus tamen gratiae Dei participandae dat potestatem: sive illi informandi adhuc, sive reformandi, sive recolligendi sunt. The true Catholic Church doth use the Gentiles as matter to work upon, heretics for the trial of their doctrine, schismatics to prove their constancy: the first she inviteth, the second she excludeth, the third she leaveth, yet to them all she offereth the grace of God: in instructing the Gentiles, reforming of heretics, and bringing home again schismatics. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Divinity. AT LONDON ●●●nted by Thomas Orwin, for Thomas Man, dwelling in Pater noster row at the sign of the Talbot. 1592. TO THE RIGHT VIRTUOUS, MOST EXCELLENT, AND NOBLE PRINCESS QUEEN ELIZABETH, OUR DREAD LADY, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc. WHen we call to mind (most gracious and dread Sovereign) the manifold blessings, which the Lord by your highness hand hath reached forth to this Realm & Church of England, the long flourishing peace, which the land under your prosperous government hath these many years enjoyed, the like whereof neither our forefathers have seen, nor other countries known: The notable reformation also of the church, & purging of the house of God, which days the holy Martyrs and servants of God long sighed for, and desired to see, but saw them not: When we do consider these things, we nothing doubt to say, that the prophecy of Esay is fulfilled in these our days, who saith concerning the Church: Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers: Isa. 49.23. as it is also prophesied in the Psalms, Psal. 49.16. In stead of thy fathers thou shalt have children, whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands. For now who seeth not, that many Christian Princes in the world are become the children of the Church? Your majesties renowned father king Henry the eight, and your highness brother of blessed memory king Edward the sixth, did but begin the foundation of the Temple, and lay the plot, and with David prepared gold, silver, brass, 1. Chron. 22.14. iron and all things needful for the building: but it was his good pleasure, that you with peaceable Solomon should finish the building, and with Zorobabel should prosper with the stone of tin in your hand. The Lord hath made you a wall and a hedge to his vineyard to keep out the wild boar: Zach. 4.10. a goodly tree to give shade to the beasts of the field, & secure to the ●oules of the air, a nurse to the people of God, Isa. 5.2. Dan. 4.9. to carry them in your bosom, as the nurse beareth the sucking child. The Lord Christ would once again hang upon the breasts of a Virgin: Num. 11.12. God hath raised you up a Deborah to judge Israel, an Esther to deliver the Church: the Lord hath made you as that virtuous matron that doth clothe her family with double raiment: Pro. 31.21. your Realm flourisheth with true religion, and abundance of peace▪ this is our double apparel. Now seven women shall no more take hold of one man, Isa. 4.2. saying, Come let us be called by thy name: but thousands of men make suit to one woman, as all Israel went up to be judged of Deborah. jud. 4.5. What though the Papists fret and storm, and cut your Majesty very short, Rhemist. annot. 1. Cor. 14. sect. 16. jud. 1.6. saying, that the Prince ought neither to give voice in counsel for matters of religion, nor make Ecclesiastical laws, and would as Zedechiah his eyes were put out, & Adonibesech his fingers cut off, so both take away the eye of your judgement, and your right hand of power in Ecclesiastical matters? What though another foul mouthed jesuite doth most impudently slander your Majesty, saying in great contempt, I am reipsa Caluinistis in Anglia, mulier quaedam summus Pontifex est? Bellarm. de notis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9 Psal. 59.14. As for them, let them wander and run up and down in the City, barking and snarling like hungry dogs, seeking meat▪ and shall not be satisfied, as the Psalm saith, yet shall the building prosper under your hand: the people of God do cry out with shoutings▪ Grace grace unto it; the whole Church of God from all parts of the world saluteth you, Zach. 4.7. Psal. 118.26. Psal. 45.4. saying: We have blessed you out of the house of God, & do encourage you to go forward, gird thy sword to thy thigh prosper thou with thine honour, ride on, because of the word of truth God hath given into your hand a two edged sword: with one edge i● defendeth the Church from false religion; with the other, the common wealth from oppression: August. ad fratres in eremo, ser. 14. as an ancient father saith, Tunc justitia dicitu● gladius ex utraque part acutus, quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs, & animam à spiritualibus molestijs. To Kings & Princes it is especially said, Thou shalt walk upon the Lion and Asp, the young Lion and Dragon thou shalt tread under thy feet. Psal. 91.14. The Lion is the open enemy, the Asp & dragon is the close hypocrite that perverteth religion. The good laws of Princes are as the pitch of Noah's ark, Gen. 6.14. it was pitched within and without: so good Princes are to provide, both for the safety of the land from foreign enemies abroad, and to preserve the soundness of religion, from corruption of heresy at home. How lawful your majesties government is, and how well pleasing before God, the sequel and effect doth abundantly show. Solomon asked wisdom, and he received both riches and honour withal: none of all these hath God denied to you: the Lord loveth you, his left hand is under your head, his right hand doth embrace you, as the wiseman saith, At his right hand is length of days, at his left, riches & honour: all these hath the Lord granted unto you: Cant. 2.6. Pro. 3.16. and thus the Lord honoureth those that honour him. And as your Majesty doth proceed and continue in advancing the Lords honour: so he is able yet to do greater things for you. Now then, seeing your Highness is our Zorobabel, the chief builder of God's house, and the rest of your faithful subjects are the helpers and workmen, some as labourers under you: I your humble and meanest subject, as a poor labourer, fit but to carry rubbish & stones, and to serve other builders, have forced myself to do somewhat towards the building of God's house: I have therefore (may it please your Majesty) in this work set down the body and sum of all Popish opinions whatsoever, wherein we descent from them, and they from the truth, and have endeavoured to lay open their nakedness, that every man may see their great brags, and small ability: words, but no matter: great promises, yet little performed: and why, as Augustine saith, Cont. Petilian. 2.98. Ostendere hoc non possunt, non quia ingenium deest, sed quia bona causa. This labour of mine was thought to be very expedient for these times, and not before enterprised by any, that men not learned, might in one volume find all the controversies of religion, which their leisure would not suffer them to collect themselves. Many of our learned countrymen have in some choice & principal controversies, as the Lords valiant champions, maintained the truth strongly against the common adversary: but this small labour, as it pleased the Lord, was left for me: they have borne the heat of the day, the cool evenings work is cast upon me. They have built with hewn stones, Isa. 9.10. the brickwork is my lot; they have squared the tall cedar trees, the wild fig trees must be hewn out by my hand. This simple work I have presumed to present to your Majesty, as a token of my duty and service, a poor scholars gift, as a sign of my thankfulness to God and your Majesty, by whom we have both leisure and maintenance to follow our studies: for as the Poet saith, Deus nobis haecotia fecit, God through you hath wrought us this peace. And I was emboldened the rather to offer this simple labour to your Highness, remembering your Princely & gracious disposition, which hath been wont to accept with great favour and regard, the meanest gifts of your subjects, yea hath not refused to receive posies and nosegays at their hands: With the same Princely countenance, I beseech your grace to receive this posy of mine, Fox. pag. 2093. Non florum, sed foliorum. A princely mind your Highness knoweth, is as well seen in accepting of small gifts, as giving of great: as Alexander said to a soldier, upon whom he bestowed a city: Si tu non es dignus tanta recipere, ego tamen dignus tanta donare: so the speech somewhat altered, me thinketh I hear your Majesty thus saying to me: Licet non tu dignus tantula donare, ego tamen digna tantula accipere: though it be not fit for thee to offer so small a gift, yet it standeth with my Princely nature to receive it. And now (O noble Queen, our dread Sovereign) the mother of Israel, a nurse to the people of God, be strong and fear not, the Lord fighteth for you: it is the truth, the ancient Catholic Apostolic faith, which we under your leading and protection do profess. As for your enemies, Psal. 28.42. Psal. 92.10. they shall be as the dust before the wind, and as the clay in the streets, but your crown shall flourish, your horn shallbe exalted. In you is that saying verified as it was sometime in David, The stone which the builders refused, Psal. 118.22. Cant. 1.4. is become the headstone of the corner. You were sometime black with sorrow, and the sun of affliction hath looked upon you: but now the Lord hath made you comely, beautiful as the morning, Cant. 6.9. fair as the moon, giving his Church under; on abundance of blessings: so that we may now all say, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it: yea we will not cease still to pray with the Church of God, O Lord save now, send us now prosperity. Psal. 118.25. That the Lord would in mercy yet lengthen out these good days, and so replenish your royal hart with his grace, that you may still bring forth fruit in your age: that what work the Lord hath yet to bring to pass in his Church, Psal. 92.14. it may be finished by your hand: that both this your Realm of England may still be strongly fenced and hedged about with all temporal blessings, Isa. 5.2. as also the watchtower and watchmen of the Church may thrive and prosper in their spiritual business. Psal. 46.4. Habac. 2.14. And as the Temple of God is now built & set up aloft, so the river of God may flow, and the streams thereof make glad the people of God: that all the land may be filled with knowledge, as the waters cover the sea: and as Aaron's silver bells in the Temple, so the voice of the Gospel may be heard over the whole land. Psal. 118.27. And thus shall the Lord grant you your heart's desire: your sacrifice shall not only be bound to the horns of the altar, but even turned to ashes: that is, the Lord will not only incline his ear to your prayer, but grant your request to the full. That at length your Majesty shall not doubt to say with the kingly Prophet David, Psal. 92.11. Mine eye shall see my desire against mine enemies, and mine ear shall hear my wish against the wicked that rise up against me. And let all the people of God say Amen: even so be it O Lord, Amen. Your majesties most humble subject, ANDREW WILLET. The Preface to the Reader. GOod Christian Reader, think not the time long, nor the labour lost, if I shall in a few words open my mind further unto thee: and as leading thee by the hand, show thee the way & entrance into this treatise following. We are not ignorant how this famous Church of England the mother of us all, hath been these many years molested and troubled with hollow hearted brethren, sowers of corrupt doctrine, devisers of mischief, enemies to our peace, and in one word, Romish Catholics and Papists. They have been from time to time, as pricks to our sides, and thorns in our eyes, Canticl. 2.15. Math. 3. as the Canaanites were to Israel: they are the Foxes that destroy the Lords vineyard, the progeny of the Pharisees, a generation of vipers, whose property is to gnaw out the sides of their dam when they are brought forth: even so have these vipers sought the destruction of their country. They are the serpent by the way, that biteth the horse heels, & causeth the rider to fall backward: that is, Gene. 49.17. Ezech. 39.18. subtly do undermine and hinder the prosperous success of religion. Of such prophesied Ezechiel, They do eat the good pasture, and tread down the rest with their feet: they have drunk of the deep waters, & troubled the residue with their feet. They are not content themselves to eat the fat, & drink the sweet of the land, but some of them have laboured & practised to disturb our peace, and to trouble the quiet state of the land. But let not us (good brethren) be offended at these things. First let us not be astonished, as though some strange thing had befallen us: 1. Cor. 11.19. for S. Paul hath said, That heresies must be among us, that they which are approved may be known: in time of persecution exercebant patientiam Ecclesiae, they did prove the patience of the Church: but now as Augustine saith, exercent sapientiam, they do exercise the wisdom of the Church. Let not the number and multitude offend us of those, which do band themselves against the Church: for so it must be, Christ's flock is but a little flock. Let us not be afraid of their wisdom, Luk. 12.32. power or strength: the scripture teacheth us, that they in their generation are wiser than the children of light: yet the Lord our God, that is with us, and fighteth for us, is wiser and stronger than they. Let them not deceive us with a show of holiness: 2. Cor. 11.14. 1. Pet. 4.15. In Psalm. 34. Conc. 2. for Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light: neither let it move us because they endure some trouble and loss 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 evil doers, and so do these. And S. Augustine saith, Si poenae martyres faceret, omnes carceres martyribus pleni essent, omnes catenae martyres traherent: If the punishment only, and not the cause made Martyrs, all prisons should be full of Martyrs, and all that are bound with fetters and chains should be Martyrs. But let us (not stumbling at any of these stones) be constant in the faith, and go forward in the profession of the Gospel, which is grounded upon the Scripture, sealed with the blood of Martyrs, waited and attended upon these many years, as the mistress with the handmaid, with peace, prosperity, and abundance of all blessings. With them there is no peace to be had: Bellarm. de laicis. lib. 3. cap. 19 Deut. 22.10 their own Doctors teach, that no reconciliation can be made between us: And indeed so it is, for there is no fellowship between light and darkness. The Israelites were commanded, not to sow their ground with divers seeds, nor to plough with an ox & an ass. What is this else, but that the Church of God cannot consist of believers & Idolaters of true Christians and hypocrites, Catholics and Heretics, Protestants and Papists? Their seed and ours is divers: they sow the doctrine of men, and human traditions: we sow the seed of God's word. The ox is only fit for the Lords plough, that chaweth the cud, and divideth the hoof, the ass doth neither: Who is he that divideth the hoof, & chaweth the cud Augustine telleth us, Homil. 35. Fissa ungula pertinet ad discernendun, quid dextrum, quid sinistrum: ruminatio pertinet ad eos, qui cogitant postea quid audierint: He divideth the hoof, that divideth and discerneth what is good, & what evil: and they chaw the cud, that do meditate of that, which they hear out of the word. But such are not the common Catholics among Papists: for they do not allow every one, the mistress, the maid, the ploughman and artificer to talk of Scripture, or move questions and doubts in Religion: and so make them asses, not oxen to chaw the cud. Rhemist. Prefat. sect. 7. Rhemist. 1. joan. 4. sect. 1. Dan. 2.33. jerem. 15.19. They say it belongeth not to every Christian, to discern between true and false doctrine, but they must take their faith of their superiors, and obey them in all things: and so neither would they have them divide the hoof, taking from them their discerning judgement. There is no agreement therefore to be looked for at their hands: no more than iron or clay can be tempered together: Their old vessels cannot receive the new liquor of the Gospel: but they must first become new themselves: they must first put off their beggarly rags of Popish ceremonies and superstitions, or else they shall never put on Christ: And to be short, Revertantur illi ad te, ne tu revertaris ad illos: Let them return unto us, we will not return to them, as the Lord saith to jeremy. But lest now we should be thought to speak without book, deeply charging our adversaries with heresy, lies, false doctrine, and proving nothing: we will take some pains of set down some principal opinions of the Papists, which have in the purer ages of the Church been condemned for heresies. Marcellina the companion of Carpocrates the archheretic, worshipped the Images of jesus and Paul, and offered incense unto them, August. heres. 7. So the Papists do worship the Images of Saints, and in the second Nicene Council it was decreed, that the Image of God should be worshipped with the same honour that God himself was. The Heracleonites did anoint their sick which lay a dying, with oil and balm, Heres. 16. So the Papists have found out extreme unction and made it a Sacrament. The Caians did hold, that the sin of judas in betraying Christ, was a benefit to mankind, Heres. 18. The Papists come somewhat near: One of them affirmeth, that the jews had sinned mortally, if they had not crucified Christ: Ex jewel. defence. Apolog. p. 676. The Pepuzians judged heretics, because they permitted women to be Priests, Heres. 27. So it was decreed in the Florentine Council among the Papists, that in the case of necessity, not only a lay man, but an heretic, pagan, and a woman to, may baptise. The heretics 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 heretics that walked with bare feet, because God said to Moses, put off thy shoes, etc. Heres. 68 And so are there of Friars that go barefoot, as the friars Flagellants, and Franciscanes. The Priscillianists did make the Apocrypha, that is, books not Canonical of equal authority with Scripture, Heres. 70. So do the Papists, the books of Toby, judith, Maccabees, and others, which are not found in the Canon of the Hebrew, they make them books of Canonical Scripture, and part of the word of God: yea, they say, that whatsoever the Pastors of the Church do teach beside Scripture in the unity of the Church, is to be taken for the word of God, Rhemist. annot. 1. Thessaly. cap. 2 sect. 12. An Archheretic called Marcus, did hold that Christ did not verily suffer and indeed, but in show only and appearance, Heres. 14 The Appollinarists also affirmed, that Christ took human flesh without a soul, Heres. 55. I pray you, how far are the Papists from these heresies? for they affirm that Christ suffered not in soul: Nay the Rhemists hold, that it is a blasphemous assertion so to say, Annot. Hebr. 5. v. 7. What is this else, but either with Marcus to say, that Christ suffered but in show, and that he felt nothing in soul, when he cried out upon the Cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? for if there were no such matter indeed, Christ must have uttered those words only in outward show and pretence. Again, they cannot shift off handsomely from them the Appollinarists heresy: for why did Christ take upon him our flesh and soul, but to redeem man, that was lost both in body and soul? and therefore he must needs have suffered both in body and soul: for if there were no use of the human soul in the work of our redemption, Cont. Felician. cap. 13. you might as well say with the Appollinarists that Christ had no soul at all. Thus Augustine reasoneth: Si totus homo perijt, totus beneficio salvatoris indiguit, sitotut beneficio salvatoris indigebat, totum Christus veniendo saluabit: If the whole man both in body and soul were lost, he wholly had need of a Saviour: and if he wholly needed a Saviour; Christ by his coming did wholly save him. Ergo▪ it followeth that Christ must wholly have died & suffered in body & soul to redeem man, that was wholly lost in body & soul. The Anthropomorphites did imagine, that God was in shape and proportion like a man, Heres. 50. Do not our Rhemists savour strongly of this heresy, which allow the image of God to be pictured like an old man with grey hairs in their Churches? Annot Act. cap 17. v. 29. The heretics Abeliani▪ thought it not lawful for their sort to live without wives, and yet they never used, nor kept company with their wives, Heres. 87. Do not the Papists come near them, which hold that their priests which were married before orders, ought not afterward to have access to their wives, yet are they their wives still, neither is the marriage knot dissolved between them? Rhemist. Act. 21. sect. 1. The Pelagian heretics did hold three pernicious opinions. First, that a man may be perfect in this life, and keep all the Commandments, Heres. 88 So the Rhemists say, it is possible to keep all the precepts of the law, Annot. joan. ●4. sect. 1. Secondly, the Pelagians say, that grace is given unto men only to this end, that they may more easily do those things which they are commanded to do by their own free will, Heres. 88 So the Rhemists say, that man was never without free will, but having the grace of Christ, it is truly made free, Annot. joan. 8. sect. 2. What is this else, but that his free will is made more free, and that grace helpeth him not wholly to work, but more easily only? Thirdly, the Pelagians hold, Gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari: That the grace of God is not needful to be given at every assay, but that their free will in most things is sufficient, August. Epist. 106. So the Rhemists say, that though the Gentiles believed specially by God's grace, yet they believed also of their own free will, Act. 13. sect. 2. What say they else, but that a man may believe by his own free will without grace. The Manichees condemned the eating of flesh, as being unclean and impure, Heres. 46. So the Papists also forbidden at certain times the eating of flesh: And herein they perhaps differ from the Manichees: They held that flesh was unclean by creation. The Papists by reason of the curse: for God cursed the earth, and not the waters (say they) and therefore upon fasting days fish is preferred before flesh, Durand. lib. 6. capit. de alijs ieiunijs. So they both agree in this, that flesh is a thing impure and unclean: for if they had not so thought, why did not that popish Bishop of London Stokeslie, rather suffer the pig to be eaten, which was found in one Frebarnes house in Lent time, Frebarn. Fox. pag. 1585. his wife being great with child longing for a piece thereof, then command it, as an unclean thing to be buried in Finsbury fields, and so the good creature of God to be spoiled and lost? There was also another most blasphemous opinion of the Manichees: for they held that the parts and members of Christ were dispersed every where, and that in their meats & drinks, they did deliver the members of Christ, which were tied and bound in the creatures. Tales (saith Augustine ●unt electi eorum. ut non sint saluandi à Deo, August. in Psal. 104. sed saluatores Dei, liberant enim membra Christi▪ cum manducant: The elect amongst them for so they call their principals) do make themselves the saviours and redeemers of God, for they do set at liberty (as they imagine) the members of Christ, he is not their saviour. Compare now the opinion of the Papists with these heretics: see if they be not cousin germans: for as they made themselves, saluatores Christi, saviours of Christ: so is it a saying among the Papists, that Sacerdos est creator createris sui: the Priest at Mass, which by five words speaking maketh the body of Christ, is a maker, say they, of his maker, a creator of his creator, Ex jewel. lib. artic. p. 615. But herein the Papists go beyond the Manichees: for they delivered the body & members of Christ from the prison of the creatures, and sent them up to heaven: the Papists bring them down from heaven, and close them in the creature, under the shape of bread and wine. Thus far we thought good to show, how near the Papists come to the heretics of old time: that it might appear to the world, that we do not unjustly charge them with heresy, and that we have good cause to shun and abhor their poisoned doctrine. Many other heresies I could have produced; which are revived by our adversaries, & raked again as it were out of their graves, where they did quietly rest. But that I am not of purpose now to deal in this matter: which may in a several Treatise (God willing) hereafter as time and opportunity shall serve, be handled more at large. I have only by the way given a taste of the bitter and sour doctrine of Popery: that our countrymen, which have been any thing that way infected, may take warning, that if they have sipped of the whore of Babylon's cup of fornication, they should leave of, before they have drunk more deeply, lest they in the end be constrained, to draw out the very dregs thereof, and to be drunken with their intoxicate cup. If they will in time be warned, they may: a word to a wise man is sufficient: and if they be wise, they will also take heed in time, I say unto them as Augustine did sometime to the Donatists: Si sapitis, bene & rectè, si autem non sapitis, nos vestri curam gessisse non poenitebit, quia et si cor vestrum ad pacem non convertitur, Cont. Petilianum. 3.59. pax nostra tamen ad nos revertitur: If you will be learned it is well, and as we wish: but if you will not, it repenteth us not, that we have had some care of you: for although your hart be not converted to the peace of the Gospel, yet our peace returneth to us again. Here by the way, I must remember myself of one thing, which I had almost overslipped. Every where both in this Preface and in this whole book, speaking of our adversaries, I call them Papists, as we are known by the name of Protestants: I suppose our English Romanists will take no offence or grief hereby so to be called: although I have heard, that some of them hold great scorn to be named Papists, yet I see no reason, why they should so do. The Rhemists like this name well enough, because it is not derived from any one man, Anno●. Act. 11. sect. 4. but from their Popes and chief Bishops, to whom (say they) we are bound to cleave in Religion, and obey in all things: So to be a Papist (say they) is to be a Christian man, a child of the Church, and a subject to Christ's Vicar. Seeing then this name pleaseth their ghostly fathers of Rheims so well, there is no reason why they should mislike it: and therefore we will use it still, as best expressing their profession, who are pinned upon the Pope's sleeve for their faith and Religion: As likewise the name of Protestants we refuse not: which name I think took beginning in England in King Henry the eights days: when there was a general protestation made in the name of the King, the whole Council and Clergy of England against the Pope: See Sicidan. Fox pag. 1083. In the which protestation, thus we find: England hath taken her leave of popish crafts for ever, never to be deluded with them hereafter: Roman Bishops have nothing to do with English people: the one doth not traffic with the other: at the least, though they will have to deal with us, we will none of their merchandise, none of their stuff. Thus we see how a Papist and a Protestant are defined: A Papist is he that cleaveth to the Pope in Religion, and is obedient to him in all things: A Protestant is he, that professeth the Gospel of jesus Christ, and hath renounced the jurisdiction of the sea of Rome, and the forced and unnatural obedience to the Pope. These names therefore as best fitting both our professions, seeing no cause to the contrary, I purpose every where to use and retain throughout this Treatise. I would here finish and make an end of this Preface, but that first I must make the Reader acquainted, with the order and method, which I have followed in setting down the controversies: The whole body therefore of the controversies between the Papists and us, our worthy and learned countryman D. whitaker's hath digested and disposed into a singular Method, the which I have propounded to myself throughout this discourse to observe. The heresies and errors therefore of Popery, do either impugn the offices of Christ, with his benefits and merits, or his person: the most of them are of the first kind, some errors they maintain against his person, but not many. First, the name of Christ showeth his offices: for it signifieth anointed: he was anointed to be our Prophet, King and Priest: jesus betokeneth a Saviour, and setteth forth the benefits of our redemption and salvation. First then of his offices, and then of the benefits, that do arise and spring thereof. The first office of our Saviour Christ, is to be our heavenly teacher and Prophet. His heavenly doctrine is contained no where else but in the Scriptures. The first general controversy than must be of the Scriptures: where there arise many questions: as of the Canonical books of the Scripture, of the vulgar translation of Scripture, of the perspicuity, and plainness, authority, interpretation and perfection of Scripture, with such other. The second office of Christ is to be our King: and because his kingdom is his Church: here we are to handle the controversies about the Church: Which is either the Church Militant upon earth, or the Church Triumphant in heaven. The Church militant is to be considered, either in general, where these questions are moved, what the Church is, whether it be visible or not, by what marks it is known, whether it may err, what authority it hath. Then the parts of the Church, which are either assembled and gathered together, as in general Counsels: where these doubts must be discussed, whether general Counsels be necessary, by whom they ought to be summoned, whether they can err, whether the Pope be above Counsels or not, and such like. Or else the parts of the church are severally to be considered, and they are of three sorts, either the chief parts, the middle and mean parts, the lowest and basest parts of the Church: The chief member they make to be the Pope: where there are many questions and of great weight, as whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchical, whether Peter were appointed head of the Church, whether the Pope be Peter's successor, whether he may err, whether the Pope be Antichrist, with such other. The middle parts, are their Clerks, which are either secular, as they call them, which have any Ecclesiastical function, where we must inquire of their election & degrees of their single life, and such like, the Regular Clerks are their Monks, and other of that profession, where we must entreat, of vows, of their solitary life, their habit, their Canonical hours, with other matters. The lowest members are the lay men: where the questions about the Civil Magistrate must be handled: as whether he may put heretics to death, whether he have any power and authority in Ecclesiastical matters, and hitherto of the Militant Church. The triumphant Church consisteth either of Angels, or other Saints departed: Concerning the Angels, we descent about the orders and degrees of them, about their ministery and office, and whether they are to be prayed unto. Concerning the Saints departed, there are many questions in controversy, as of Purgatory▪ Lymbus Patrum, whether they are to be prayed unto, of their Relics, Images, Temples, Holy days, and such like. The third office of Christ is his Priesthood, whereof there are two parts, his intercession, where we must inquire, whether Christ be the only Mediator of intercession▪ and his Sacrifice, where the main and great controversy concerning the Sacraments doth offer itself: for by the Sacraments the power and efficacy of the death of Christ is derived unto us. Here first we must entreat of the Sacraments in general, as of their number, their efficacy, the difference between the Sacraments of the old and new Testament: then in particular, as of Baptism, and the several questions thereto belonging, of the Lords Supper, where also the great controversy about their Idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass, and other necessary questions must be handled. Then follow in order five other popish Sacraments to be considered of, confirmation, penance, extreme unction, orders, matrimony. And these are the controversies concerning the offices of Christ. The controversies which concern the benefits of our redemption, with other several questions, are these, as of predestination, of sin, of the law, of free will, of faith, of good works, the particular questions are set forth at large in other places. Lastly, there remain some questions, about the person of Christ, 〈◊〉 whether he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, God of himself, whether he increased in wisdom, whether he suffered in soul, whether he merited for himself, with such other. Thus have we the sum & body of Antichristian doctrine, which we purpose by the grace of God to go through, beginning at the first, and so prosecuting every particular question, till we are come to the last. My purpose is not to set down all the heresies, which impugn the Christian faith, but only those which are maintained by the Church of Rome this day; who are the chief troublers & disquieters of the peace of our Church: I say therefore with Augustine, Omnis Christianus Catholicus ista non debes credere, sed non omnis, qui ista non credit, consequenter see debet Christianum Catholicum ●utare vel dicere. Every true Catholic Christian is bound not to believe any of these errors set down in this book: but it followeth not, that whosoever believeth not these, is a true Catholic: for there are other heresies in the world, which destroy the faith, as the heresies of the anabaptists, Family of Love, Libertines, and such like. But our special purpose and drift is, to weed out the Popish cockle and darnel, that troubleth our field. Neither have I set forth at large the controversies between us: for that laborious work other of our learned countrymen have taken in hand, as D. whitaker's in Cambridge, D. Reynoldes in Oxford, and beside, it far exceedeth my strength and ability: I have only briefly set down the grounds of Popery, as I have collected them out of Bellarmine, the stoutest champion of their side, our English Rhemists, Eckius, Canisius, and other Papists, as also out of the late Chapter of Trent, for it deserveth not the name of a Council. And with all as an Antidotum or counterpoison, I have opposed and set against them, the confession of the Protestants and Church of God: with reasons and Arguments of both sides, and places of Scripture annexed: adding also throughout the judgement of Augustine, who of all the fathers, is most plentiful in these matters, which fall in question in our days. The benefit, which the Christian Reader shall reap in some measure (I trust) by this simple labour of mine, is threefold. First the knowledge of all Popish errors, which much availeth: Multum adiwat cor fidele nosce, quid credendum non sit, August. de heresib. epilog. etiamsi disputandi facultate id refutare non possit: It much helpeth a Christian toward belief, to know what is not to be believed, though he can not refel it by Argument. secondly he shall understand both their principal Objections, which they do entangle simple men withal, as also he shall learn how to defend and maintain the truth. Thirdly the chief places of Scripture, which make for them or against them, are briefly every where expounded and opened. This whole work I have divided into three parts or books: the first containeth the controversies of the Scriptures and the Militant Church: the second the controversies of the Triumphant Church: and of the Sacraments: the third the questions, concerning the benefits of our redemption, and as touching the person of Christ: Which books I have thus divided, not so much in respect of the matter which they contain: for then the controversies of the Militant and Triumphant Church ought not to have been sundered: but that there might be some equality & indifferent proportion in the Volumes, every one of them comprehending a century that is an hundred of Popish errors either under or over. But the rather I have so done, because I had proceeded no further, then to the end of the controversies of the Militant Church when this first book went out of my hands: the which I was moved upon some occasion to publish, before the rest were finished, which shall not stay long after, God assisting me. Wherein I do also follow the counsel and example of Augustine, who writing of the like argument of heresies, doth thus conclude his book: Hunc librum, August. lib. heres. epilog. antequam totum hoc opus perfeci vobis credidi esse mittendum, ut cum, quicunque legentis, ad id, quod restat implendum, quod tam magnum esse cernitis, orationib. adiwetis. This book I thought good (saith he) to send abroad, before the rest be finished, that whosoever readeth it, might help me with their prayers, to the better performing of that which remaineth: Which I beseech thee also (good Christian Reader) to afford me, that being mutually assisted one with the prayers of an other, we may walk on with strength and cheerfulness in our Christian race, till we have by jesus Christ obtained the price of everlasting life. Amen. THE FIRST BOOK OR century CONTAINING THE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION, WHICH ARISE IN Question between the Church of God and the Papists, about the word of God contained in the Scriptures, and the Church Militant here upon earth, with the parts and members thereof. THE FIRST GENERAL Controversy of the holy Scriptures. ACcording to the method, which we will (God assisting us by his spirit) observe throughout this whole Treatise of the controversies, in the first place we are to entreat of such matters, as concern the Prophetical office of Christ. He is our Prophet, our heavenly teacher, and Doctor. Math. 23. vers. 8. from him proceedeth all holy knowledge: we have not seen God, nor the high things of God: but the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him. john. 1.18. Wherefore all the true sheep of Christ, will hear his voice. john. 10.3. His voice is not else where heard but only in the Scriptures: We must hear Moses and the Prophets. Luke. 16.29. First of all therefore this great and most famous controversy between us and our adversaries concerning the Scriptures must be handled: which is distributed into seven several questions. 1 Concerning the Canonical Scripture, what books are to be received into the sacred Canon, what books to be rejected and counted apocryphal. 2 Concerning the authentical Edition of the holy Scriptures, whether the Hebrew Greek or Latin translation is chiefly to be followed. 3 Whether the Scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar and English tongue: and whether public prayers and divine service ought to be used in the same tongue. 4 Whether the scriptures are authorized by the Church, and not rather so known to be of themselves. 5 Concerning the perspicuity and plainness of the Scripture, whether it be so hard, that the common people may not safely be admitted to the reading thereof. 6 Concerning the interpretation of Scripture: which question is divided into three parts: first whether the Scripture admit diverse senses and expositions: secondly who hath the chief authority to expound Scripture: thirdly what means ought to be used in expounding of it 7 Concerning the perfection of the Scripture, three parts of the question. First, whether the Scriptures be necessary: secondly whether they be sufficient to salvation: thirdly whether there be any traditions beside necessary to salvation. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING the Canonical Scripture. Of the state of the first Question. WE have not any thing in this place to deal with those heretics, which deny either the whole Scripture, or any part thereof: but only with our adversaries the Papists, that holding all those books to be Scripture, which we do acknowledge, do add unto them other books which are not canonical: so that they offend not as other heretics, in denying any part of the Scripture, but, which is as bad in adding unto it, for both these are accursed. revel. 22.18. First of all briefly before we proceed, let us see who they were that offend in the first kind. Some heretics generally rejected the whole Scripture, some certain parts thereof. The Sadducees received no Scripture, beside the five books of Moses, the Manichees condemned the whole old testament, and so did wicked Martion. The books of Moses the Ptolemaites refused, the book of the Psalms the Nicolaitanes, and the anabaptists in our days: there wanted not which condemned the book of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lascivious books: and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their parts. The holy and excellent book of job hath also found enemies, and some of the Rabbins which do think that the story is but feigned: which heresy is confuted Ezech 14.14. for there Noah, job, Daniel are named together: so that it is manifest, that such a man there was. The new testament the Manichees most impiously affirmed to be full of lies. Cerdon the heretic condemned all but Luke's Gospel. The Valentinians could away with none but john's Gospel. The Alogians of all other hated john's writings. The Ebionites only admitted Matthewes Gospel. The Acts of the Apostles the Severian heretics contemned. The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothy, to Titus, to the Hebrues. The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paul's works. ex Whitakero, cont. 1. the Script. cap. 3. Unto these add the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be judged by the Scripture, calling it a dead letter, and fly unto the inward and secret revelations of the spirit. And by your leave the Papists are not far from this heresy some of them: although the jesuite cry never so much with open mouth, that we belie them, De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a little pains to peruse that worthy learned man's and reverent father's defence of the Apology p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodovicus a Canon Lateran in Rome, said in the Council of Trent, that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentum, dead ink. The Bishop of Poitiers said, that it was, but res mammis & muta, a dead and dumb thing. Albertus Pigghius, that the Scriptures were but muti judices, dumb judges. Eckius calleth it evangelium nigrum, & theologiam atramentariam, the black Gospel and inky divinity: and it is nasus cereus, a nose of wax saith he. And now in cometh Hosius with his part: that it is but lost labour which is bestowed in the Scripture: for the Scripture is a creature, and a certain bare letter. But the jesuit saith, that we abuse the name of that man, for those are not his own words, but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius: Be it so for this time, though M. jewel bestow some pains to prove them to be according to his own meaning. Though these be not Hosius own words, yet these are not much better, yea far worse, who speaking of David's writing of the Psalms, saith thus, Quid ni scriberet, scribimus indocti doctic poemata passim, why might not he write (saith he) being a temporal Prince, as Horace saith, we writ ballads every body both learned and unlearned. p. 522. I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians, unless it be in this, that the libertines cleave to secret revelations, the Papists are pinned upon the Pope's sleeve, affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church. Nay one of them saith, determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur evangelium, the determination of the Church is called the Gospel. johannes Maria! will you yet hear of greater impiety? Anno Domini .1240. or thereabout there was a book set forth by the Friars, called evangelium aeternum, full of their own fables, and abominable errors: they taught that Christ's Gospel was not to be compared unto it, and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years. This book with much a do was condemned by the Pope, (but after long disputation) and it was burnt secretly, lest the friars should have been discredited: and withal the book of Guilielmus de S. amore, which he had written against the Friars, and disputed against their Gospel, was commanded to be burned with the other. Besides these heresies, their opinion also is to be rejected, that think that the holy writers might in some things be deceived, as mistaking one thing for another, or failing in their memory. To this opinion Erasmus inclined, whom Bellarmine taketh pain to confute, lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well have turned his argument upon Melchior Canus their own champion, who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a story might forget himself in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero, but now to the question. The Papists Assertion. THere are certain books annexed to the old Testament, which the Papists error 1 themselves do not acknowledge for canonical, as the Prayer of Manasses, the two books of Esdras, commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras: also other which are not usually in our English Bibles, as an appendix to the book of job, the 151. Psalm, a book called the Pastor. All these by our adversaries are rejected. The question between us is concerning these books: first certain pieces joined to canonical books; as seven Chapters of Esther, certain stories annexed to Daniel, as of Bel & the Dragon, of Susanna, the Song of the three children: also the Epistle of Baruch joined to jeremy. Then follow certain whole books, as Toby, judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, two books of the Maccabees: these six books with the other three appendices or pieces of books the Papists hold to be canonical, and of as firm authority as any part of the Scripture. Arguments they have none, beside certain testimonies of some fathers and Counsels, which we purpose not to deal withal, leaving them to our learned country men who have taken in hand to discuss these controversies to the full. The Protestants confession. WE are agreed concerning the new testament, that all the books thereof as they stand are to be received 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 worn out, there is no question of them. Concerning the books on both sides acknowledged, if some one man seem to doubt of some one part, as Luther doth of the Epistle of james and Jude, it ought no more to prejudice us, than Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more books in question then Luther did, as the Epistle of james, of Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of john, the last Chapter of Mark. We differ not then in the new Testament, unless it be concerning the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which over adversaries stoutly affirm to be S. Paul's, which we deny not, neither certainly can affirm it, seeing in some Greek copies it is left out, and in the Syriac translation. But it mattereth not who was the author, seeing we receive it as canonical: for the title is no part of the book, and so neither of Scripture: and we receive many books in the old Testament, the authors whereof are not perfectly known. So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testament: they are called Apocrypha, because they are hid and obscure, not because their authors are unknown: for as I said, we know not by whom certain Canonical books were written: neither are they so called because of some untruths contained in them contrary to Scripture, as the most of them have▪ for it followeth not, that every book which hath no untruth or lie, should strait ways be taken for Scripture, but they are therefore judged and called Apocrypha, because they were not in former time received into public and authentic authority in the Church, neither to be alleged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life, and may have other profitable use. But the Canonical Scripture only hath this privilege to give rules of faith, and thereupon it hath the name, that we may be bold to believe and ground our faith upon the canonical & holy Scripture, which is the only word of God. Wherefore out of this number of Canonical Scripture we exclude all the books afore named, & therefore let not the reader be deceived, that although they be joined in one volume with the Scripture; to think that they are for that of the same authority and credit with the rest: first we will show one reason in general, and afterward come unto the particular books in order. 1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets: we have a sure word of the prophets, saith S. Peter 2.1.19. and S. Paul, Rom. 16.26. calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets. But none of those books aforenamed, of Tobias, judith and the rest, were written by the Prophets: for they were all written since Malachies' time, who was the last Prophet, as the Church complaineth, Psal. 74.9. There is not one Prophet; nor any that can tell us how long. Ergo none of these books are canonical. 2 All the canonical books of the old Testament, were acknowledged of the jews and Hebrues, for they were then only the Church of God, and where should Scripture be found but in the Church? to them, saith S. Paul, were committed the oracles of God, Rom.▪ 3.2. But the jews received none of these books: for none of them are written in the Hebrew tongue, neither did they receive them with the like authority as other books of Scripture; and this some of the Papists can not deny. Ergo thy are not Canonical. 3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament, but it hath approbation of the new: for as the Prophets bear witness to Christ, so he again doth witness 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 approved 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 books of Scripture: therefore having no approbation of the new Testament, we conclude they are none of the old. 4 It shall appear in the several discourse of the particular books, that there is somewhat even in the books themselves to be found, that barreth them from being Canonical. OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH. The Papists. THis is their best reason for the authority of this book, because Baruch was jeremies' scribe: and therefore Baruch can not be refused, unless also we doubt of jeremy. Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo. Dei. cap. 8. The Protestants. THis book was neither written by jeremy nor Baruch: first because it is in Greek: if either jeremy or Baruch had written it, it is most like they would have written in Hebrew. Secondly, the phrase and manner of speech showeth that it was never written in Hebrew: for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of jeremy, it is said that the Israelites should be in captivity seven generations, that is 70. years, but it can not be found in any Hebrew book that generation is taken for the space of 70. years. OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther. The Papists. 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, & have been of ancient time, Ergo they are Canonical. I answer, that it is no good argument. Hierome saith plainly, Legit Ecclesia, sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit, Praefat. in lib. Solomon. The Church indeed (saith he) readeth them, yet for all that they are not Canonical. And Augustine was wont to read unto the people the Epistles of the Donatists, and his answers unto them. Epist. 203. The Protestants. THe most of our reasons against the authority of the 7. Chapters added to Esther (for of the 10 first Chapters, which are found in the Hebrew, we make no doubt at all) are drawn from the matter of the book itself. 1 In the second of the Canonical Esther. ver. 16. it is said that the conspiracy of the two eunuchs against the king, was in the 7. year of Assuerus: but in the 11. Chap. ver. 2. of the Apocryphal Esther, we read that Mardocheus did dream of this conspiracy in the second year. Bellarmine answereth, that both are true, for the dream was in the second year, & the conspiracy in the seventh; so belike, there was five years between. But in the 11. Chapter, it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dream, and the next night after his dream the conspiracy 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 story saith, that at the same time the king gave him great gifts, which can not be meant, of that great honour which afterward was bestowed upon Mardoche: for then Haman (being hanged the same day) could work him no despite, whereas the forged story saith, that after the king had rewarded him, than Haman began to stomach him, because of those two eunuchs. 3 Again the story which is added, was written many years after Mardoches & esther's death, under the reign of Ptolomaeus & Cleopatra, as it appeareth. cap. 11.1. it is not like therefore to be a true story: Beauties ridiculous conjecture is this, that there were two stories written in Hebrew of Esther, the one compendious & short, which we now have: the other more large, which might be translated by Lysimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now only have, the original being perished. What goodly guesses here be, to make Canonical Scripture? what need two books of one thing? If the first were written by the spirit of God and so were Canonical, what need a second? the spirit of God useth not to correct his own writings: and this can not be that ample and large story imagined, being shorter, and not so full as the first. 4 Besides the false story saith, that Haman was a Macedonian. Cap. 16. v. 10. the true story saith, he was an Agagite or Amalekite. cap. 8.3. how can these two agree? Nay the forged book saith, that Haman would have destroyed the king, & so conveyed the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians: which could in no wise be: for the kingdom of the Macedonians was not yet spoken of: and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander, who was many years after. Vide plura▪ Whitach. quaest. 1. cap. 8. De Scriptures. 5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated, which was set down in the former part, which argueth, that the story was not written by one man: and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrew, another in Greek. If any say (as the jesuite saith) that this part was in Hebrew, and being translated into Greek, was lost: why was one part rather lost then the other? and was it not as like to be preserved in Hebrew as in Greek? These are very bare and suspicious conjectures. OF CERTAIN CHAPTERS annexed to Daniel. THere are three parcels joined to Daniel, the song of the 3. children, the story of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, in the vulgar Latin, which are not any part of Canonical Scripture. 1 They are neither extant in Hebrew at this day, nor are like to have been translated out of Hebrew into Greek: but compiled first in Greek, and therefore not written by Daniel: for v. 54.58. of the story of Susanna, where one of the Elders saith, he saw her under a lentisk tree, the other under a prime tree: he useth a certain paronomasy or allusion unto the Greek words, which can not stand in the Hebrew, as of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saith the Angel of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall cut you in two: and so of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall divide thee in two. As if a man should thus allude in English: thou wast under the prune tree: the Lord shall prime thee. This allusion is not in the Hebrew, as the learned have very well observed, but only in the Greek. 2 The time is uncertain when this story should be done. It was in the captivity: for Susanna dwelled in Babylon, but Daniel could not then be so young a child as the story maketh, for he was carried away in the first captivity with jehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell, that lived about that time doth speak of the great prudence & sage wisdom of Daniel, Ezech. 28.3. and joineth him with Noah & job. cap. 14. All this proveth that Daniel could not be so very a babe in the beginning of the captivity, as the story maketh him. 3 In the story of Daniel it is said that he was 6. days in the lions den, but the true story saith he was there but one night. cap. 6. The jesuite answereth, he was twice in the lions den, or rather he thinketh there were two daniel's, the one of the tribe of juda, which was that great Prophet: the other of Levi, which was the principal in those two stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon. But this is a poor shift, to invent another Daniel, whom the Scripture never knew: and if it were so, why are all their acts joined together, as if one Daniel had done and write them all. OF THE BOOK OF TOBY. 1 THis book is not found in the Hebrew, in the which tongue all the oracles of God were kept. Ergo it is worthily doubted of. 2 Our adversaries themselves confess, that in Hieromes time it was not received for Canonical. The jesuite answereth: that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a General Council: to whom (saith he) it appertaineth to define of Canonical Scripture: As though this were not a greater doubt, whether a Council hath any such authority, to determine which books ought to be received for Canonical, for Canus a Papist maketh question of it. Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the jesuite himself saith that the Church can not, Facere Canonicum de non Canonico, make a book not canonical, to be canonical, but only to declare those to be Canonical, which are so in deed. Wherefore the Papists take to much upon them, to make this book within the Canon, being of itself not Canonical, and so adjudged by antiquity. 3 He that readeth the book itself shall find that both the style, and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonical Scripture: read Tremell. in cap. 3. ver. 8. cap. 13. ver. 15. OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH. AN especial Argument against this book is, that the history can not be assigned to any time. 1 It is pretty sport to see how the Papists do moil themselves about this point: and can not agree amongst themselves. Some hold that this story fell out after the captivity in Cambyses time, as Lyranus, and Driedo: some in Darius Histaspis reign, as Gerardus, Mercator: some would have it before the captivity in Sedechias time, as Genebrard: some in josias time, as johan. Benedictus: but the jesuite confuteth them all, and bringeth the story to Manasses reign: but he hath also missed the cushion. 2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captivity for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards, for the kingdom was translated from the Assyrians to the Persians and Medes. Again it could not be before either in josias time, Sedechias, or Manasses, first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had been destroyed and cast down, which could not be in any of those kings reigns. It is but a shift of Bellarmine's, to say those words were foisted into the text: it is rather to be thought, that the jesuite is put to his trumps, not having else, what to answer. Secondly judith being at this time in the flower of her age, and living afterward many years till she was 105. year old, all which time, and many years after her death, the book saith in the last Chapter, the land had rest: this can not agree with Manasses time: for within 40. years or not much above, the land fell into great trouble, strait after josias death. Where then is this long time of rest? And the jesuite that still groundeth upon impossibilities and unlikele-hoods, that judith was at this time 40. year old, which was (saith he) in the beginning of Manasses reign, and so to die about 7. years before josias: yet for all his scanning is driven to this shift, that the many years peace after her death, must be understood of poor 7. years. Thirdly, if all this happened in Manasses time, whom the Chaldeans took and carried away prisoner, and had much troubled and afflicted the country of judaea: what need had Holofernes to inquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite, of the country their City, people, kings, and such like: judith ca 5. seeing they had known the country, to well before in spoiling and wasting of it, as the jews by woeful experience had felt. OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM. The Papists. Our adversaries reason thus: they say that S. Paul. Rom. 11.34. using this speech: who hath known the lords mind or been his counsellor? doth allege it out of the 4. Chapter of this book. v. 13. Ergo it is Canonical. We answer. First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimony, though the words which he useth▪ may else where be found. Secondly though the like words are read in the book of Wisdom, yet is it not necessary the Apostle should borrow them from thence, but rather they are alleged out of the 40. of Esay. 13. Where the Prophet saith, who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counsellor? And this also is the opinion of the Rhemistes, that S. Paul in that place useth the Prophet's words. The Protestants. Our reasons against the authority of this book are these and such like. 1 Because this book is not found in the Hebrew, but written only in Greek: wherefore it is not Canonical seeing the jews had all the oracles of God. 2 Philo a jew is thought by the Papists themselves to be the author of this book, who lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, neither himself was a Christian or believed in Christ: therefore an unlike man to be a writer of Canonical Scripture. Bellarmine saith, it was another Philo, who was more ancient. Indeed josephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time, but he was an Heathen and no Iew. 3 If this book were written by Solomon, why is it not extant in Hebrew? for Solomon wrote in Hebrew & not in Greek. Many of the Papists also do prove, that it was not written by Solomon: for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying unto God: that is no good argument to prove Solomon the author, for the author might speak in the person of Solomon. OF THE BOOK CALLED Ecclesiasticus. The Papists. THey have none but common and general arguments for the authority of this book, as that it was of old read in the church, & diverse of the father's alleged testimonies out of it. All this proveth not, as we have showed before, that it was Canonical, but that it was well esteemed and thought of, because of many wholesome and good precepts which are contained in it. The Protestants. WE do thus improve the authority of this book. 1 The author in the Preface saith, that he translateth in this book such things, as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrew, and excuseth himself, because that things translated out of the Hebrew do lose the grace, and have not the same force: so than it appeareth that this book can not be Canonical being imperfect: neither was his grandfathers work (which is now lost) to be thought any part of the Scripture, seeing he was no Prophet himself, but a compiler and a collector of certain things out of the Prophets. 2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth, and so craveth pardon: but the spirit of God useth not to make any such excuse, whose works are most perfect, and fear not the judgement of men. 3 This book saith. cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuel prophesied after his death, & from the earth lift up his voice. Whereas the Canonical Scripture saith not that it was Samuel, but that Saul so imagined, and thought it to be Samuel. 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was, phantasma Samuelis, but a show only and representation of Samuel, and an illusion of the devil. Lib. ad Dulcitium, quaest. 6. For it is not to be thought, that the devil can disease the souls of any men, much less of Saints departed. OF THE TWO BOOKS OF the Maccabees. Our Arguments against the authority of this book are these ensuing, for our adversaries bring nothing on their part, but such Arguments drawn from testimonies & authorities, as do generally serve for all the Apocrypha, which are answered afore. 1 judas is commended. 2. book. chap. 12. for offering sacrifice for the dead: which was not commanded by the law, neither is it the custom of the jews so to do to this day: & again they were manifest Idolaters: for there were found jewels under their coats consecrate to the Idols of the jamnites. And our adversaries grant themselves, that prayer is not to be made, for open malefactors dying impenitently. 2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the ark, the holy fire, the altar the tabernacle, which should be hid by jeremy in a cave, and that the Lord would show the people these things at their return. Here are many things unlikely and untrue. First, it is found, saith the text in the writings of jeremy: but no such story is there found. Secondly jeremy was in prison till the very taking of the City: and the City being taken the temple was spoiled, the holy things defaced and carried away, how could they then be conveyed by jeremy? Thirdly in their return, they found neither ark nor fire, nor any such thing: but saith the jesuite, the jews in their conversion to God in the end of the world, may have them again: as though, when they shall believe in Christ, they will any more look back to the ceremonies or rites of the law, for what use than I pray you shall they have of altar or sacrifice or any such like. 3 There is a great disagreeing in the story between the two books concerning the death of Antiochus. Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16. It is said that Antiochus died for grief in Babylon, hearing of the good success of the jews. Lib. 2.1. ver. 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his soldiers slain in the temple of Nanea, and his head cut of & thrown forth. Chap. 9 the same Antiochus falling sick by the way died with a most filthy and stinking smell, consumed of worms: How could this man die thrice, in Babylon, in Nanea, and by the way in a strange country. It is confessed by the jesuite, that it was the same Antiochus, who saith he lost his army in the temple, and sickened by the way and died at Babylon. But the story saith that their heads were cut of: I think them he could not live, and that he died in a strange country, therefore not at Babylon in his bed. These things hang not together. 4 Further the author of these books saith, that he abridgeth the story of one jason a Syrenean. Lib. 2. cap. 2. v. 23. Who was an Heathen: but the spirit of God useth not, neither needeth to borrow of profane writers. He saith that this work was not easy but painful to him, but required sweeting and watching. v. 26. But to the holy writers of Scripture, though their own labour and diligence was not wanting, yet was not the work hard or molestious unto them. Lastly the author faith he writeth for pleasure & recreation of the Reader, and craveth pardon, if he have not done well. Lib. 2.15.39. But to read for pleasure is no end of Scripture, neither doth the spirit of God use any excuse either for matter or manner. Our adversaries say that S. Paul likewise confesseth, that he was rude in speaking. 1. Cor. 11.6. We answer, he so saith, because the false Apostles so gave out of him, not that he was so indeed: and yet in that place S. Paul doth not excuse himself, for his not sufficient handling of his matter, as this author doth: neither is that speech of S. Luke any thing like: for there the Evangelist doubteth not to say, that he had attained to an exact knowledge of all things. Upon these premises we conclude, that these books of the Maccabees are not Canonical, nor to be taken for any part of holy Scripture, though we deny not, but that there may be some profitable use of them for the story. AUGUSTINE'S JUDGEMENT OF the books called Apocrypha. FIrst, generally of them all thus he writeth. Quas itaque Scripturas dicimus nisi Canonicas legis & Prophetarum, de unit. Eccle. 16. We acknowledge no Canonical Scripture of the old Testament, but the law and the Prophets, but none of the Apocrypha were written by any of the Prophets. Again he saith: Omnes literae, quib. Christus Prophetatus est, apud judaeos sunt Psal. 56. All the books, which do Prophesy of Christ, were kept amongst the jews: but none of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrew. Ergo. Concerning the story of Bel and the Dragon he calleth it a fable, de mirabilib. lib. 2. cap. 32. Of the same credit is the story of Susanna. The book of judith was not (saith he) received in the Canon of the jews. De Civit. Dei. 18.26. The two books of Ecclesiasticus and the wisdom of Solomon are only said to be solomon's, propter eloquij nonnullam similitudinem, because of some affinity and likeness of the style. De Civit. Dei. 17.20. So he thinketh that Solomon was not indeed the author of them: how then can that book be Canonical, which giveth itself a false title: being called the wisdom of Solomon, and was never compiled by Solomon. THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERning the authentical and most approved Edition of the Scriptures. The Papists. WHereas it is confessed that the Hebrew Edition of the old Testament error 2 is the most ancient: in the which tongue the Scriptures were compiled by the Prophets: & that the new Testament was written in Greek by the Apostles and the Evangelists, yet our adversaries do generally hold, as it was decreed in the Tridentine Chapter. Sess. 4. Decret. 2. That in all sermons, readings, disputations, controversies, the vulgar Latin translation should be taken for authentic before the Hebrew or Greek, and that no man should presume upon any occasion to reject it, or appeal from it. The Protestants. WE do truly affirm, that although there are diverse Editions of the old Testament besides the Hebrew, and some of them very ancient, as the translation of the Septuagints, compiled by 72. ancients of the jews, at the instigation of Ptolomeus Philadelphus' king of Egypt, 300. years before Christ: and after Christ there were other translations in Greek made by Aquila, Synomachus, Theodotion, and others: also a Chalde Paraphrase compiled by the jews, & last of all diverse Latin translations, the which, as Augustine saith, in his time were so many, that they could not be numbered: yet of all the rest the Hebrew being the most ancient and the mother of the rest, and freest from corruptions, aught to be received as most authentic. And for the new Testament, though there be a Syriac translation very ancient, yet the Greek ought to be preferred (being the same tongue, wherein the Apostles and the Evangelists wrote) to be the only authentic copy. As for the Latin translation of the Bible, we are able to prove it to be very corrupt and faulty and therefore not authentic. The Papists Arguments. 1 THe Latin Church hath used the vulgar Latin translation for the space of 800. or 900. years, and it is not like that the Church all this while was without the true Edition of the Scriptures. Ergo it is only authentical. We answer. First, by this Argument it followeth that this vulgar Latin being generally used, was preferred before other Latin translations, which were at the first in great number, not that therefore it is more authentic than the Hebrew in the old, and the Geeeke in the new Testaments. Secondly, there were other Churches besides the Latin all this while, as amongst the Greeks' famous congregations and Churches: that be it in the Latin Church, the vulgar translation was retained being erroneous, yet the whole Church continued not in that error, which were not so tied and bound to the Latin translation. Thirdly, if men all this while (knowledge decreasing, and a way being in preparing for Antichrist) were negligent in correcting and amending the common translation, this is no good Argument to make it authentical. ● As the Hebrues had an authentic translation in their own tongue, and 〈…〉 in theirs, why should not the Latin Church have it also authentical in Latin. We answer. First, it is no good reason, because the Lord did consecrate the Hebrew and Greek tongue, and therein would have his word written, that therefore he would or should also have made the Latin as well authentical, as they. Secondly, if the Latin Church must have an authentic translation, why should not other countries likewise have their authenticals? The Armenians had the Scriptures of old translated by Chrisostome, the slavonians by Hierome, the Goths by ulphilas, why should not these also as well be authentical? and so look into how many tongues the Scriptures should be translated so many authentical translations should there be. 3 They say that all other translations, which are come forth since are erroneous, and much differ amongst themselves. Answer. First, this is no reason to prefer it before the Hebrew and Greek, though it were better than all other translations. Secondly, they charge us falsely, that our translations are dissonant and erroneous: for their disagreement is not in such substantial points, & where any of them do serve from the original, we allow them not: and yet there is not the meanest of them, but may justly compare with theirs, yea and be preferred before it. Thirdly, if their translation were so pure, as they say Beza himself maketh it, he would not have set forth a new Edition: and he preferreth it in some places before other translations, but is far of from making it authentical, and so are we: these are the jesuits arguments. De verb. Dei lib. 2. cap. 10. and some of our Rhemists in their Preface to the new Testament. Some of our Arguments are these, for it is not necessary to repeat all, and it were to long. 1 If the Latin translation be authentical, as it was decreed in the Council of Trent, than it must have been so from the beginning, so soon as there was any Latin translation: for the Council had not authority to make that authentical, which was not, but only to declare it so to be. But the Latin translation, for the space of 600. years after Christ was not received as authentical: for we find that the Latin writers as Lactantius, Hilarius, Ambrose, Hieronimus, Augustinus, and others did not use the same Latin translation: Ergo, this vulgar Latin having not been always, since it was extant authentical, why should it now begin? 2 That Edition, which was made, and framed, and first written by the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, is to be preferred before that, which was not compiled by any Prophet or Apostle. But such are the Hebrew in the old Testament, and the Greek Edition in the new, by the confession of our adversaries, Bellarmin. cap. 7. lib. 2. Such is not the Latin, for it is uncertain, by whom it was written: for the jesuite confesseth, that it is not all of Hieromes Edition: as the book of the Psalms, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, which they think were not translated by Hierome: But let us grant that the whole was of Hieromes doing, yet was he no Prophet nor Apostle, saith he, Aliud est vatem esse, aliud interpretem, it is one thing to be a Prophet, another to be an interpreter. Wherefore it is no reason, that Hieromes, or whose translation else soever should be received before the writings of Prophets and Apostles. But say our adversaries, if we had a perfect copy of the Hebrew & Greek editions, we confess they were to be preferred: but now they are full of faults, and greatly corrupted. We answer. First, the jesuite himself disputing against Canus and Lindanus two Archpapistes, that though there may be some 'scapes in the translations by the fault of some Libraries and imperfect copies, yet concerning the doctrine of faith and manners, saith, there is no corruption in them. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Secondly, though there may be and are some words falsely written, and by error thrust into the text, yet they shall never prove that they are more corrupt, the Hebrew and Greek, than the Latin: for it followeth no more, that because of some escapes the Latin is to be preferred before them, than that a cloak altogether patched and ragged is better than a cloak of velvet that hath but one piece. 3 The jesuite himself, and other Papists confess, that in some cases it is very necessary to have recourse to the original: as when some word seemeth to be mistaken by the writer, as where cecinit is read for cecidit: dorix, for vorax, cor for coram, or when the Latin copies do vary, or if the sentence in Latin be ambiguous, and lastly, the force and property of the words is better understood in the original. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 11. Ergo by the jesuits confession, the original or fountains are more certain and sure without doubtfulness and ambiguity, therefore more authentical than the Latin. 4 There are many & great errors in the vulgar translation, and contrary to the original, Ergo it is not authentic. Some of the places we will quote, as Genes. 3. ipsa conteret, for ipsum, she shall break the Serpent's head, where we do read, that not the woman, but her seed shall break his head. Genes. 6. ver. 6. for figmentum cordis malum: the thoughts of man's hart are evil, they read, intenta ad malum cogitatio, inclined to evil: and so extenuate original sin. Genes. 14.18. for protulit panem & vinum, Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine: they read, obtulit he offered, or made an oblation of bread and wine, and would hereby establish the sacrifice of their Mass. Ecclesiasticus. 16.14. for secundum opera, a man shall receive according to his works: they read after the merit of his works. In their Latin translations of the Psalms there are many corruptions. Psal. 67. v. 12. si dormiatis inter medios cleros, though ye sleep between two lots, without any sense: the Hebrew thus inter ollas, though you have lain amongst the pots, as being black with affliction. v. 22. they read convertam in profundum maris: I will turn them into the bottom of the sea, for reducam profundo maris, I will bring them from the depth of the sea, clean contrary. Psal. 132.15. viduam eius benedicam, I will bless his widow, for victum, I will bless his victuals. So in the new Testament, are many false readings. Luc. 1.28. plena gratia, for gratis dilecta, hail Marie full of grace, for freely beloved. Luc. 15.8. evertit domum, for everrit: she overthrew the house, for she swept the house. 1. Cor. 15. v. 51. non omnes immutabimur, we shall not all be changed, for omnes immutabimur, we shall all be changed. Ephe. 2.10. creati in bonis operib. created in good works, for ad opera bona, created unto good works. An hundred more errors and over, you may find noted in the readings of our learned country man D. whitaker's. 2. quaest. de Scrip. 10.11.12. cap. these I have set down for a taste. Lastly we will rehearse Augustine's judgement: Vtcunque est, ei linguae magis credatur, unde est in aliam per interpres facta translatio: Howsoever the case standeth (saith he) we ought to give more credit to that tongue, out of the which other are translated. Lib. 15. de Civit. cap. 13. Ergo the Hebrew in the old Testament, and the Greek in the new, out of the which the Latin and all other translations have issued, aught to have the only pre-eminence. THE THIRD QUESTION: CONCERNING the vulgar translation of Scripture. The Papists. THey do not absolutely condemn the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, what soever they have thought in times past: neither would they generally have every man permitted to read the Scripture, but such only as have especial licence from their ordinary, having the testimony of their Curates that they be humble and devout persons, Rhenens. praefat. sect. 6. So then they hold it dangerous for all men to read Scripture, and they would not willingly licence any, but their Pope holy devout Catholics; they are like to make a mad piece of work, that go about to pick their faith out of Scripture, say the Rhemists, annot. 1. Cor. 1.5. This then is their opinion, that it is neither necessary nor convenient for all men to have access to the Scriptures: we will see some of their reasons. 1 From the time of Esdras till Christ, and in our saviours time, the Scriptures were not in the vulgar tongue, but only in the Hebrew, which the jews understood not after the captivity: Ergo it is not now necessary to have them in the vulgar tongue. That the people understood not Hebrew, the jesuite proveth out of the 8. of Nehemiah: where it is said, that Esdras did expound the law to the people, because they understood it not. We answer, that the text saith clean contrary, that he read the law before the people that understood it. v. 3. and they might give the sense, though the people understood the language. Concerning the places objected out of the Gospel, to prove the jews spoke another language than Hebrew, as it appeareth by those speeches Marc. 5. Talitha cumi, Math. 27. Golgotha, which savour not of the Hebrew tongue, we answer, that although they spoke not pure Hebrew, but many strange words were used, yet they understood the Hebrew, for why else doth Christ bid the people to search the Scriptures? And they were not the jews, but the Roman soldiers that understood not the voice of Christ upon the Cross, saying, he called for Elias. 2 The Apostles (saith the jesuite) wrote their Epistles only in Hebrew or Greek, and not in the vulgar tongues of the nations to whom they preached, Ergo it is not necessary that the scriptures should be in the vulgar tongue. We answer. First, it had been an infinite labour for the Apostles, to have left their writings in every language, neither was it necessary, seeing out of the original they might be translated into every language. Secondly, they preached the same things unto the Gentiles in their own tongues, which they afterward left in writing. Thirdly, the Greek tongue, wherein they wrote, was universally known, and few countries 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 understanding of the people, they understand them not being translated neither. We answer: many things they may easily understand: and for the harder places, they are nearer the understanding of them being translated, then before: for than they have two great lets, the tongue unknown, and the obscure and hid sense; now they need not to labour for the tongue, but only for the sense. 4 The Scriptures are occasion of offence and heresy, being not right understood, Ergo. First▪ because many surfeit of meats and drinks, it is no reason that sober men should be forbidden the use of them: no more for heretics & wicked men's sakes ought the people of God to be barred from Scripture. Secondly, more have perished by ignorance in Scripture, then by misunderstanding it: and the Scripture, was ordained of God to meet with offences, and to confute heresies. 2. Tim. 3.15. Wherefore these men make themselves wiser than God, that think the Scripture is an occasion of those diseases, for the which it is appointed a remedy. The Protestants. WE do believe and hold that it is requisite, expedient and necessary for the Scriptures to be uttered and set forth in the vulgar and common speech, and that none upon any occasion ought to be prohibited the reading thereof for knowledge and instructions sake: and that Christian Magistrates ought to provide, that the people may have the Scriptures in their mother & known tongue. Wherefore great wrong was offered to the people of England that diverse 100 years, till king Henry the eight, could not be suffered to have the Scriptures in English. And how I pray you did the Papists storm, when as Tindals' translation came forth? some affirming that it was impossible to have the Scriptures translated into English, some that it would make the people heretics: others that it would cause them to rebel. Fox. pag. 117. col. 1. What fowl and shameful slanders were these? For the vulgar translations of Scripture we reason thus. 1 It is God's commandment, that the Scriptures should be read before the people, that they may learn to fear God, Deut. 31. vers. 11.12. The people are commanded to write the law upon their gates, and in their houses to confer and talk with their children and teach them the law▪ Deut. 6.6.7.8. And our Saviour biddeth the people search the Scripture, john. 5. v. 39 Ergo what God hath commanded, no man ought to prohibit or forbid: the people therefore must not be kept from reading of Scripture. 2 Without Scripture there is no faith, faith is necessary for all people, Ergo the knowledge of the Scripture: that faith cometh by the scriptures, read john. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might believe jesus Christ to be the son of God. Again the weapons of Christian men, are not denied to any, whereby they should fight against their spiritual enemies, but the word of God is a special part of our harness, Ephe. 6. and a principal weapon, even the sword of the spirit Ergo. 3 The Gospel may be preached in the vulgar tongue, as our blessed Saviour and the holy Apostles taught the people: Ergo the word of God may be read and written in the vulgar tongue. The proposition our adversaries grant, that Sermons may be made in the vulgar tongue: but it followeth not, say they, that therefore Scripture should be in the mother tongue. Rhem. 1. Cor. 14.8. But I pray you how can the preacher allege Scripture in his Sermon, unless it be recited in the vulgar tongue? or how should the people know they preach the word, unless they may compare their doctrine, with Scripture as the Berrheans did? Act. 17. 4 We have the practice of the Church of God in times passed for our warrant: for in Chrisostomes' time the people had vulgar translations: whereupon he exhorteth them to get them Bibles, or at the least the new Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels. Homil. 9 Epist. ad Coloss. We heard before that the Armenians, slavonians, Goths had the Scripture in their own language: so many hundred years ago in England king Alured translated the Psalter: a copy whereof was found in Crowland Abbey, called S. Guthlakes Psalter, as M. Lambert witnesseth: and Bede our learned country man, translated S. john's Gospel. Fox. pag. 1115. col. 2. The Rhemists also confess that more than 300. year ago the Italians had the Bible translated, and the French men above 200. years ago. Praefatan Testam. 4. sect. Why should not the people of God have the same liberty now freely to read the Scriptures, as they have had in times past? 5 Let us hear Augustine's opinion: Lectiones divinas (saith he) & in Ecclesia, sicut consuestis, audite, & in domib. vestris relegite. I would have you both to attend unto the public readings in the Church, and in your house to read over again the holy lessons: but how could the people read them at home, if they were not in their vulgar tongue? AN APPENDIX OR PART OF THIS question, concerning public prayers and divine service in the vulgar tongue. The Papists. error 4 IT was decreed in the Tridentine Council, that the service of the church which they call the mass, should not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Sect. 22. cap. 8. And it is the common practice every where of the Romish church to use the Latin tongue only. We must be content (say they) with those three tongues which God honoured upon the Cross: namely the Hebrew, Greek and Latin. This liberty only they grant, that their Priest may expound some things, as he readeth, and show the meaning to the people 1 Thus they argue: the majesty and gravity of the sacred business, do require also to be uttered in a sage, sanctified and grave language, Ergo not in the vulgar. We answer, the gravity▪ reverence, and holiness consisteth not in words, phrases, and sounds, though never so eloquent, but in the things themselves: neither is any tongue that is understood, before the Lord counted barbarous: for S. Paul saith, that he is a barbarian, and speaketh barbarously in the Church, that can not be understood. 1. Cor. 14.11. And Acts. 2.11. the very strangers and barbarians heard the Apostles utter in their languages the wonderful things of God: they thought the tongue no disgrace to those holy mysteries they uttered. 2 Levit. 16. ver. 17. The people is commanded to stand without, till the Priest went in and made atonement for them: they understood not the Priest, for they heard him not, Ergo it is not necessary the people should understand the Minister. We answer. First, that was a type of our Saviour Christ, who even so ascended into heaven, as the high Priest did into the holy place: but types and figures prove nothing. Secondly, they understood not the priest, because they heard him not: but they can not prove that the Priest uttered any thing in their hearing at any time, which they understood not. 3 We must only use those tongues in holy affairs, which were sanctified in the Cross: that is Hebrew, Greek, Latin. We answer: those tongues were not then used for any such purpose, but that the death of Christ might by those common and universal tongues be the further spread abroad. And surely if they would prove that these tongues were hereby sanctified, me thinks Pilate was no fit instrument of that sanctification, by whose appointment the title was written. The Protestants. WE do affirm, that as it hath been the commendable use of all ancient Churches, to have the service in the vulgar tongue, that the people might understand, and be better stirred up to devotion: so the same godly use ought for ever to remain and be retained in the Church of God. 1 This is most agreeable to S. Paul's doctrine. 1. Cor 14. who would have all things done to edifying: but by an unknown tongue no man is edified: and he saith, he had rather speak five words to be understood, than ten thousand otherwise. Some of the Papists say, that S. Paul speaketh of preaching not of praying: but in the 14. ver. he speaketh namely of prayer, and in the 16. of the people's saying Amen, which was not given at Sermons, but in the end of prayers: this is but a weak answer. The Rhemistes and the jesuite say he speaketh of certain extraordinary Hymns and giving of thanks, whereof S. Paul speaketh, Ephe. 5.19. Answer S. Paul speaketh generally of all public exercise in the Church, whether of prayer, preaching, singing, that it should all be done in a known tongue: for he useth the general terms of speaking, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of the voice, as ver. 11. If I understand not the power of the voice (he saith not of the song, or preaching) I shallbe to him that speaketh, a barbarian: so he misliketh not only preaching, or singing, but any kind of speaking in the Church in a strange tongue. This place of S. Paul is to evident and plain, them that it may be so easily wrested and depraved by their heretical and Antichristian gloss. 2 Who seethe not that prayers made with the understanding are more comfortable and fruitful: the other nothing to profit at all, nor yet to be available before God? Howsoever our adversaries say, that the hart and affection may pray, though the understanding pray not, yet S. Paul saith, they speak in the air: their prayer is but wind 1. Cor. 14.9. Therefore not amiss did that godly Martyr M. Wisehart, compare the ridiculous gestures of the Priest at Mass, being not understood of the people, to the playing of an ape. Fox p. 1269. col. 2. And one john Riburne was unjustly troubled of Longland Bishop of Lincoln anno 1530. for saying, if we had our Pater noster in English, one should say it nine times, against once now. Fox. pag. 984. col. 2. And was not that ghostly & Bishoplike counsel think you of the Bishop of Cavaillon to the Merindolians in France? that it was sufficient to know their Pater noster, & Creed in Latin: it was not necessary to salvation to understand or expound the Articles of faith: for there were many Bishops, Curates, yea Doctors of Divinity, whom it would trouble to expound the Creed or Pater noster. Fox. Martirol. pag. 949. col. 2. 3 We will conclude with Augustine. Quare dicta sunt, nisi ut sciantur? quare sonuerunt, nisi ut audiantur? quare audita sunt, nisi ut intelligantur? tract. in johan. 21. Why are things spoken in the Church (saith he) but to be known? why are they pronounced, but to be heard? why are they heard but to be understood? Ergo, Lessons, and Scriptures, and public prayers must be used in a known tongue, and easy to be understood. THE FOURTH QUESTION: OF THE authority of the Scriptures. The Papists. error 5 THe Papists of former times doubted not to say, that the Scripture is not authentical without the authority of the Church; so Eckius saith, so Pigghius, that the authority of the Scripture dependeth of the authority of the Church necessarily. Hermannus a Papist most impudently affirmeth, that the Scripture should be of no more credit than Aesop's Fables, without the approbation of the Church: a fowl blasphemy. But our Papists of later time, being ashamed of their forefather's ignorance, they say that the Scriptures in themselves are perfect, sufficient, authentical, but that to us it appeareth not so, neither are we bound to take them for Scripture without the authority of the Church: so Canus, Bellarmin. Stapleton: so that, (say they) in respect of us the Church hath absolute authority to determine, which is Scripture, which not. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 3. the Script. cap. 1. 1 There is no more certain authority, than of the Church, Ergo the church must determine of scripture, sic Stapleton. We answer. First, the majesty of the Scriptures themselves is more certain, and the inward testimony of the spirit, without the which we can not be persuaded of the truth and authority of the Scripture. Secondly, if they mean by the church, the synagogue of Rome, it hath nothing to do to judge of Scripture, being the seat of Antichrist: neither is the authority of that Church to be credited, but rather suspected and mistrusted. 2 There are certain writings of the Prophets not canonical, and other writings of some that were no Prophets, made canonical, Ergo the Church hath authority to judge of Scripture, sic Stapleton. For the first, where he objecteth that there are many writings of the Prophets as of Solomon, Nathan, Ahiia, jeedo. 2. Chronic. 9.29. that are lost, and if they were extant, should not be received. We answer. First, it is not to be doubted of, but some part of the canonical Scripture is lost. Secondly, how proveth he that if they were extant, they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture. To the second, that books not made by Prophets are judged canonical, as of Toby, judith. We answer, that these books ought not to be canonical, neither that ever they were so taken, till of late it was decreed by Counsels of no great antiquity: for in the Laodicene Council and other ancient Counsels, they were deemed not to be canonical. 3 Certain books of the new Testament before doubted of, as the Epistle to the Hebrues, the Apocalypse, the 2. Epistle of Peter, the second of john, are received into authority by the Church: and other books, as the Gospel of Thomas, Mathias, Andrew, Peter, were rejected by the authority of the Church. We answer. First, we deny not but that the Church is to discern between the true Scriptures & forged books, but this she doth not of her own authority, but following the direction of God's spirit speaking in those writings: for the Church looking into the sacred and divine matter of the Apostles writings was moved to acknowledge them for the word of God, though of some they were doubted of: & finding the other to be fabulous books did by the direction of the same spirit reject them. Secondly, Augustine and Hierome think that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time, john being the survivor of them all, who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles, and condemned the contrary. If it be so (the spirit of God in the Apostles having determined this question already concerning the canonical Scripture) the Church hath no authority to alter or change that decree. Plura. apud Whitacher. quaest. 3. the Scripture. cap. 5. The Protestants. WE do not despise the sentence of the Church, as our adversaries do falsely charge us: but we confess that it is the duty of the Church to give testimony to the Scriptures, as the Goldsmith doth try the gold: Fulk. annot. 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the lords stamp upon false coin, as the Papists do in making Apocryphal books canonical. Neither do we only believe the Scripture, because of the Church's testimony, nor chief, but because the spirit of God doth so teach us▪ and the Scriptures themselves do testify for themselves: so that every man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture, though there were no public approbation of the Church: Fulk. 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher. quaest. 3. cap. 1. de Scriptures. We do reason thus. 1 The jesuite doth reason strongly for us: he bringeth five arguments to prove the Scripture to be the word of God: veritas vaticiniorum, the constant and perpetual truth of the Prophecies: incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio, the wonderful harmony and consent of holy writers of the Scripture: testis est Deus ipse, the spirit of God is a principal witness unto us: testis est ipsa Scriptura, the Scripture itself beareth witness, as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is given by inspiration: testis est divinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum: lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophets and Apostles do testify for the truth thereof. He maketh no mention at all of the testimony of the Church, but saith the same that we hold▪ that the spirit of God inwardly working in our hearts by the Scriptures themselves, which we find to be most perfect, consonant, true, of singular majesty, doth teach us which is the word of God. Bellarmin. de verbo Dei. lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture giveth authority to the Church, Ergo the Church giveth not authority to the Scripture: the first we prove by our adversaries own confession: for being asked, how they know that the Church erreth not, they allege 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 give authority to Scripture, seeing it taketh her warrant and authority from thence? the jesuite himself saith, that nihil est certius vel notius Scriptures, nothing is more certain or notoriously known then Scripture: and again, sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima, the holy Scripture is the most certain rule of faith. Bellarm. de verbo. 1.2. If the authority of Scripture then be most certain, what reason is it, that they should depend upon the judgement of the Church which is nothing so certain? the less certain aught (rather and so doth indeed) depend of the more certain, the Church upon the Scripture, not contrariwise, for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church. Ephe. 2.20. 3 To believe the Scripture is a work of faith▪ the Church can not infuse faith into us, but the spirit of God, Ergo the spirit of God not the Church teacheth us to believe Scripture▪ argum. Whitach. 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend upon the approbation of the Church, than the promises of salvation and eternal life contained in the Scriptures do so likewise: but it is absurd to think that the promises of God do stand upon the allowance of men, Ergo neither the Scriptures. argum. calvini. 5 The Scripture is the chief judge, and aught so to be in all controversies: we may appeal from the Church to the Scripture, not from the Scripture to the Church: the Church is subject to the Scriptures, the rule of faith is in the scriptures, not in the Church: for the company of faithful which is the Church, are ruled by faith: they do not overrule faith, neither are a rule thereof: the Church is a point of belief, as in the Creed, not a rule or measure thereof: Ergo the Church is not the chief judge of Scripture, but itself to be judged by scripture. Whitach. argum. 16. 6 We have evident places of scripture. john. 5.34. saith Christ, I receive no witness of men: but the scripture is the voice of Christ, and of the same authority, Ergo. Ver. 36. I have a greater testimony than of john, the scriptures do testify of me. Ver. 39 The testimony of the scriptures is greater than the record of john, Ergo then of the Church. 1. john. 5.6. the spirit beareth witness, that the spirit, that is, the doctrine of the spirit is the truth. And. ver. 9 if we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, Ergo, not the judgement of the Church, but the witness of the spirit doth certify and assure us of the truth and authority of scripture. 7 I will add 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 resolved for no cause to leave the authority of Christ (speaking in the scriptures) for I find none more forcible: Ergo the authority of scripture is above the Church, which is denied by the Rhemistes. annot. 2. Gal. sect. 2. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING the perspicuity and plainness of the Scripture. The Papists. Our adversaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard, difficult, and obscure. error 6 Bellarmine saith, necessario fatendum est, Scripturas esse obscurissimas, it must needs be granted that the scriptures are most obscure. de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not only affirm that some things are obscure in the scriptures: but that they are all hard, and doubtful, and uncertain, and compare them therefore to a leaden rule, which may be turned every way, Petrus a Soto. And to a nose of wax, Lindanus a Papist, ex Tilmanno, de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemists say, it is all one to affirm 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 therefore dangerous for the ignorant to read them. Rhemens. annot. in. 2. Pet. 3. ver. 16. 1 They object that place. 2. Pet. 3.16. where the Apostle saith, speaking of S. Paul's Epistles, that many things are hard. Ergo the Epistles of S. Paul are hard, and so the scriptures: this is Bellarmine and the jesuits argument. We answer. First, he saith not that Paul's Epistles are hard, but many things, which he entreateth of. Secondly, they are hard not to all▪ but the unstable and unlearned do pervert them. Thirdly, We deny not, but that some places in the scripture are obscure, and have need of interpretation: but it followeth 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 mystical: as of the Trinity, of the incarnation of the word, of the nature of Angels, & such like. We answer, these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diverse ways. First, in their own nature: so are they hard indeed, for by human reason, we can not attain to the depth of them. 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 deep mysteries will afford. Thirdly, in respect of us: so must they needs be obscure, if men be not contented 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 us, but, res Scripturae, these things, as they are opened in scripture, are plain, if we will content ourselves with that knowledge. Secondly (saith Bellarmine) the manner of handling is hard and obscure: there are many tropes, metaphors, allegories, Hebraismes, which can not easily be understood. We answer. First, many of these are rather ornaments of the scripture, as tropes, metaphors, than impediments to the reader. Secondly, though the phrase of scripture seem hard at the first, yet by further travel in the scriptures it may become easy and plain: for all things are not understood at the first. Thirdly, we deny not but that some places are obscure, and had need to be opened. 3 If the scriptures be not hard, what need so many Commentaries, and expositions. Rhemist. 2. Pet. 16. We answer. First, so many Commentaries are not requisite, some may be spared. Secondly, expositions are needful for the understanding of dark places: but many things are plain enough without expositions, and may be understood of the simple. The Protestants. WE do not hold that the scripture is every where so plain and evident, that it need no interpretation, as our adversaries do slander us, and therefore here they do fight with their own shadow. Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confess, that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easy together, that we might be exercised in the Scriptures, and might knock & labour by prayer and study, 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 travel, the harder places may be opened to the people. But this we affirm against our adversaries: first that all points of faith necessary to salvation, are plainly set forth in the Scriptures: secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and unlearned, notwithstanding the hardness of some places, which in time also using the means they come to the understanding of. Ex Fulk. annot. 2. Pet. 3.16. Whitacher. quaest. 4. cap. 1. 1 First, that which we maintain is evident out of the scripture, Deut. 30.11. the commandment, which I command thee, is not hid from thee, nor far of. And as it followeth, thou needest not ascend to the heavens, or go beyond the sea: the word is near unto thee, even in thy mouth and hart, to do it. argum. Brentij. Ergo the scriptures are plain. First the jesuite answereth, that it is meant only of the decalogue and the ten commandments, that they are easy, not of the whole Scripture. As though if the commandments be easy the rest of the scriptures be not likewise, as the Prophets and historical books being but commentaries and expositions of the decalogues. S. Paul. Rom. 10.6. understandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith, who better knew the meaning of Moses then the jesuite. 2 2. Cor. 4.3. If our Gospel be hid, it is to them only that are lost, Ergo the Scriptures are plain to the faithful. The jesuite answereth. S. Paul speaketh of the knowledge of Christ, not of the Scriptures. First it is manifest out of the 2. verse, that S. Paul speaketh of that Gospel, which he preached to the Corinthians, which is the same he wrote unto them: wherefore if the Gospel preached were easy and plain, why is not the Gospel written by him, I mean the doctrine of faith being the same, which he preached? Secondly if they grant that the knowledge of Christ is easy, we ask no more: for this is that we say, that the doctrine of faith and salvation is plainly expressed in Scripture. 3 This is the difference between the new Testament and the old: the old is compared to a clasped book. Isay. 29.11. the new to a book opened. Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians far exceedeth the knowledge of the jews: it was lawful for them to read the scriptures, much more for all Christians. The jesuite answereth that our knowledge is greater than theirs, not in all scripture, but in the mysteries for our redemption only. We answer, this is all we desire: for if the mystery of salvation 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 seethe not what silly answers these be? 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter, In ijs (inquit) quae apart in Scriptures ●osita sunt, inveniuntur ea omnia, quae fidem continent moresque vivendi. De doctrine. Christia. lib. 2. cap. 9 The plain and easy places of scripture contain all things necessary unto faith and good life, Ergo the doctrine of salvation in the scriptures is not hard and difficult, but easy of good Christians to be understood. THE sixth QUESTION CONCERNING the interpretation of Scripture. THis question doth divide itself into three parts: First concerning the diverse senses of the scripture. Secondly, to whom the chief authority to expound scripture is committed. Thidly, what means must be used in the interpretation of scripture. THE FIRST PART OF THE SIXTH Question: of the diverse senses of Scripture. The Papists. error 7 THere are two strange Assertions of our adversaries concerning this matter. First they affirm that the scripture may have diverse senses and meanings in the same place. The sense of the scripture is either literal (say they) & historical, which is the first & most proper sense; or spiritual, that is an higher sense derived out of the other, and it is of three kinds, Allegorical, Tropological, Anagogical: they show by particular instance and induction, that the scripture besides the literal sense may have these also. The Allegorical sense is, when besides the plain historical and literal meaning, somewhat is signified which by an allegory is referred unto Christ or the Church, as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the story of the bond and free woman, S. Paul apply it unto the two Testaments, Ergo one place may have more senses than one. The Tropological sense is, when as there is somewhat signified appertaining to manners, as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussel the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, this by S. Paul is applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 Ergo, the scripture hath diverse senses. The Anagogical sense is, when the place is applied to decipher & set forth the kingdom of heaven and eternal things, as Psal. 94. I swore unto them, if they should enter into my rest: this is literally understood of the rest in Canaan, & spiritually of life eternal, Ergo many senses: thus reasoneth. Bellarmin. lib. 3. the Scripture. cap. 3. The Protestants. WE affirm that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense, which we call the literal sense, when as the words are either taken properly, or figuratively to express the thing which is meant: as in this place, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head, the literal sense is of Christ, who should triumph over Satan, though it be spoken in a borrowed and figurative speech. There can be therefore but one sense, which is the literal: as for those three kinds, they are not diverse senses, but diverse applications only and collections out of one and the same sense. 1 It shall appear by a several induction of all these kinds: In the first example of the Allegorical sense Galathes 4, the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense, but that it may be allegorically applied, which is historically set down. There is then but one sense of the place, part whereof consisteth in the story, part in the allegory: so that the whole sense is contained in them both. Concerning the second example of the Tropological: there is not a twofold sense of that place, but one whole general sense; that as the mouth of the ox was not to be muzzled, so the Minister of the Gospel must be provided for. Likewise of the Anagogical kind: it is not one sense to understand the rest of Canaan, an other of the kingdom of God: but there is one whole sense, that as they for their Idolatry were deprived of the land of promise, so we should take heed lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdom of heaven. So we conclude that those are not diverse senses, but one sense diversly applied. 2 The literal sense is the only sense of the place, because out of that sense only may an argument strongly be framed: wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not conclude, they are not the senses of the place. An allegory or type may be part of the literal sense, and then it concludeth: but when an allegory is framed beside the literal sense, it concludeth not, and therefore is no part of the sense: as to reason thus, the ox's mouth must not be muzzled, Ergo the Minister must be maintained, it followeth well, because it is part of the sense: but allegories devised beside the sense prove not, though they may illustrate. The Papists. THeir other assertion is this, that it is lawful 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 apply the rest of the Sabbath to the eternal rest. Ergo, the like applications of the fathers are lawful. See annot. Heb. 7.2. the Apostle (say they) findeth great mysteries, even in the very names: Ergo it is lawful to make allegories. The Protestants. WE say, it is dangerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of God's spirit: this was the occasion that diverse of the ancient fathers greatly erred: as the jesuite himself reprehendeth Papias, justinus, Lactantius, for allegorising that place revel. 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes, by false interpreting of the thousand years there mentioned. To their arguments our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth. First, it followeth not, because it was lawful for the Apostles governed by the spirit to make allegories, that it is therefore lawful for others. Secondly, when the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirit, which the holy writers had, and of the like dexterity in understanding and expounding Scripture, they may likewise be bold to make allegories. Let us hear 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 involuta esse contendunt. As they are much deceived, which think that the stories in the scripture do signify 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 lawful for any to invent allegories of scripture, as it seemeth good to themselves. THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVEtion to whom the chief authority to expound Scripture is committed. The Papists. error 9 IT was decreed in the Council of Trent, that scripture should be expounded, as the Church expoundeth it, and according to the common and consonant consent 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 general Council: if there it be not determined, we must have recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals. The jesuite dare not refer the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture, but joineth the College of Cardinals with him. Bellarm. lib. 3. de script. cap. 3. 1 They object that place Deut. 17.9. where the people are commanded to resort unto the Priest or judge in doubtful matters. Ergo, there ought to be a chief and supreme judge in Ecclesiastical matters, Bellarm. We answer. First, here the civil Magistrate and the judge are joined together, as ver. 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby, that the Pope must be supreme judge in all Ecclesiastical matters, than the Emperor ought to be as well in civil. Secondly, the text saith, they shall come to the Priests. ver. 9 assigning many, not to one only Priest. Thirdly, they must judge according to the law. v. 11. not as they list themselves. Fourthly, here is no mention made of doubts in interpreting scripture, but of controversies that may fall out between man and man, either Ecclesiastical to be decided by the Priest, or civil by the Magistrate. Fiftly, we grant that in every country there ought be a supreme and high seat of judgement for determining of controversial matters between men: but it followeth not that there should be a supreme judge over the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures, which i● not committed to the judgement of men, neither is any such controversy named in that place. ver. 8. 2 Ecclesiastes 12.11. The wiseman compareth the words of the wise to nails which are fastened, given by one pastor: Ergo the Pope is supreme judge. We answer, the wise men are here understood to be the Pastors and Ministers of God's word, but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law, nor the Pope in the new, but jesus Christ, the high shepherd for our souls. What great boldness is this to attribute that to the Pope, which is only proper to Christ? 3 They also pick out some places in the new Testament, as Math. 16.19. to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Christ saith so to Peter, Ergo the Pope hath authority to expound scripture. We answer. First, by the keys here is meant commission to preach the Gospel, not only to expound doubts. Secondly, they were given to all the Apostles, not to Peter only, Math. 28. v. 18.19. Thirdly, the Pope is not successor of Peter, no more than any other godly Bishop, nor so much unless he follow Peter's steps. So they abuse that place Math. 18.17. he that will not hear the Church etc. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures. Answer. First, our Saviour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church, of corrections and admonitions, not of interpreting scripture, which dependeth not upon the will & fantasy of Pope, Cardinals, or Popish Counsels, but must be tried by the scriptures themselves. Secondly, we must give ear to the Church, but with a double condition: we must be sure it is the Church of God, secondly, we must not hear them, contrary to the scriptures, but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ. The Protestants. WE have a more compendious way to come to the understanding of the scripture: It were to long when we doubt of any place to stay till we have the general consent of the pastors of the Church, or to expect a general Council, or go up to Rome. And it were to much to trouble the Pope's gravity with every question: The Lord hath showed us a more easy and ready way: see that we need not ascend to heaven or compass the earth or pass the Alps: but the word of God is amongst us, the scriptures themselves and the spirit of God opening our hearts do teach us how to understand them: the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors, or tried to any place or persons. Our arguments follow, some few of them. 1 That only hath power to give the sense of Scripture, which doth beget us faith: the spirit only by the Scriptures begetteth faith. Rom. 10.17. faith cometh of hearing the word, Ergo the spirit of God is the only interpreter of scripture. The proposition also is clear: for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning thereof, if any should give the sense of the scripture, but that which worketh faith, then upon him should our faith be grounded. If the Pope therefore give the sense of Scripture, and our faith ariseth of the Scripture understood, than our faith is builded upon the Pope's sense. argum. Whitach. 2. & 9 2 The Scriptures can not be interpreted but by the same spirit, wherewith they were written, but that spirit is found no where but in the Scriptures, Ergo. The first part the Papists themselves grant: the second is thus proved: the spirit of the Apostles is not given by secret inspiration, that savoureth of Anabaptisme: where is it them to be found? whether is it like that S. Peter's spirit should be found in the Pope's chair, or in his Epistles? or if they have S. Peter's spirit, where is S. Paul's found but in his writings? Yet it is all one spirit, & appeareth not else where but in the Scriptures: where every man may find it as well as the Pope: the spiritual man judgeth all things. 1. Cor. 2.15. you have an ointment from him that is holy, and you have known all things: and ver. 27. you need not that any man teach you. By these places it is evident, that every faithful man by the spirit of God may understand the scriptures. 3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures, Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the judgement of the Church. The former part is proved by the example of the Berrheans. Act. 17.11. If they did well in examining Paul's doctrine, much more may the decrees of the Pope, Church, Counsels be examined by the scriptures. But they knew not whether Paul was an Apostle or not▪ therefore they might examine his doctrine, saith the jesuite. Answer, it is no matter for the person of Paul, they examined his doctrine, which dependeth not upon the person. Secondly, they could not be ignorant of his Apostleship, who was famous throughout the Churches. Thirdly, they doubted only whether Paul was an Apostle, but we are sure the Pope is none, neither successor of any Apostle, but very Antichrist, Ergo we have more just cause to examine his decrees. 4 Lastly, let Augustine speak: Novit charitas vestra omnes nos unum 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 fellow scholars under one master, and though we speak to you out of an higher place, yet are we not your master, he is the teacher and master of us all that dwelleth in our hearts. Ergo the spirit of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof. THE THIRD PART OF THE SIXTH Question: concerning the means or method to be used in interpreting of Scripture. The Papists. error 10 Our adversaries prescribe this method and course to be taken in expounding of scripture, which consisteth in four rules: the general practice of the Church, the consonant interpretation of the fathers, the decrees of general Counsels, lastly the rule of faith, consisting partly of the scriptures, partly of traditions unwritten, Stapleton. Concerning the three first, we have already touched them in part: they appear to be insufficient. First, the Counsels and fathers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before, and now they are but means: what other chief judge then is there to use these means? surely none but the scriptures. Secondly, these means are most uncertain, the practice of the Church is often changed, fathers agree not in their expositions, and Counsels can not always be had. Concerning the rule of faith consisting of unwritten verities: he groundeth it falsely upon that place. Rom. 12.6. let us prophecy according to the rule of faith, and Gal. 6.16. as many as walk according to this rule. This rule was a certain platform of Religion, given 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. Answer, S. Paul meaneth no other rule, but that which is set down in his writings, no other form of doctrine but that contained in his Epistles, as in the 6. to the Galathians, speaking of this rule, he alludeth to the former verse, where he saith he rejoiced in nothing but in the Cross of Christ: his rule therefore is to receive Christ only without the ceremonies or works of the law: against the which heresy he disputeth in the whole Epistle. But of all other it is a great blasphemy to say that the Apostles set down the Scriptures by a rule, as though the spirit of God, by whom they spoke, had need of any such direction. The Protestants. WHen we say that the scriptures must expound themselves, our meaning is, that by certain compendious and ready means, we should labour to understand the scriptures by themselves: the means are especially these four. First, to have recourse to the original tongue, as in the old Testament to the Hebrew, in the new to the Greek: as 1. Tim. 2.15. through bearing of children they shallbe saved, if they continue in faith and love: In the English it is doubtful, whether this clause, if they continue in faith, be referred to children, or to those that bear them: but read the Greek and the doubt is removed: for bearing of children is all one word in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that it must needs be understood of the women: for this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ bearing of children is in the singular number, that which followeth of the plural, and it is but an action, not a person, so that it should be improperly said, if they continue▪ that is, in bearing of children. Stapleton objecteth against this mean: that it is not now needful, seeing there is a perfect and absolute translation authorised by the Council of Trent, he meaneth the vulgar Latin. We answer. First, it is no perfect but an erroneous translation, and very corrupt. Secondly, if it were never so perfect, yet for more certainty, it is profitable to search the original: every man will trust his own skill, rather than another man's. Thirdly, the Council did fond in authorising an old blind translation, before the authentical copies of the Hebrew and Greek. 2 Secondly, the scope of the place, the circumstance of it, with that which goeth before, and cometh after must, be weighed, which will bring great light to the place we have in hand: an example we have 1. Pet. 4.8. love covereth multitude of sins: the Papists gather out of these words, that love doth justify us before God and taketh away our sins: but by the circumstance of the place, the Apostole saying immediately before: have fervent love among you, it is evident he understandeth brotherly love amongst ourselves, whereby faults are buried, forgiven, and forgotten. Stapleton objecteth: that this is but an uncertain way, and many times faileth: for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another: how then can it help to consider the circumstance of the place being of a diverse matter? We answer, we say not that any of these means serveth for every place, but when one faileth, to use another: when the circumstance helpeth not, to run to the original, if there we find, no succour to compare places together, and when we may, to use them all, or the most. 3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable, as james. 2.21. Abraham was justified by works, compare it with that place Rom. 4.2. there S. Paul saith flatly that Abraham was not justified by works: Wherefore seeing one Apostle is not contrary to the other: we must needs gather, that this word justified is diversly taken, Paul saith that Abraham was not justified that is, made righteous before God by his works. james saith he was justified, that is declared to be just before men, and so Thom. Aquinas expoundeth it. Stapleton objecteth, that this means in comparing of places is of itself many times of small force. Answer, as though we affirm that these means must be used asunder, and not rather jointly together, and where one faileth, another to help. Secondly, some things are found but once in the scriptures. Answer, they are then either very plain, or not greatly necessary. Thirdly, heretics have erred in comparing of Scripture. Answer, they compared them not diligently, nor with a sincere mind, but corruptly and negligently. 4 The fourth rule is the analogy and proportion of faith, which is nothing else but the sum & grounds of Religion gathered out of scripture, such as are contained in the Creed, the lords Prayer, the ten Commandments, and in our whole Catechism. We must take heed, that in the interpretation of Scripture we serve not from this rule of faith, nor impugn any principle of Religion. Wherefore the Papists interpretation of those words of Christ we do reject. Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: who would have the very flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament: for this is against the article of the Creed, that Christ is ascended into heaven, and there sitteth till his coming again in judgement. Concerning these means, thus writeth Augustine. Rarissime invenitur ambiguitas in verbis proprijs, quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur Scripturarum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut praecedentes soluat inspectio, de doctrine. Christ. lib. 3.4. There is almost no ambiguity in any word properly used (that is not metaphorical 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 approveth this method, though our adversaries like it not. Besides these, prayer must be used before we enterprise any thing, that the Lord would direct us. And they which can not so easily take this course, which is prescribed, shall do well to seek help of learned and godly expositors, or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 5. cap. 9 THE SEVENTH QUESTION: CONCERNING the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture. THis question is divided into three parts. First, whether the Scriptures be absolutely necessary. Secondly, whether they be sufficient without unwritten traditions. Thirdly, whether there be any traditions of faith and manners beside the Scriptures. THE FIRST PART OF THE Necessity of the Scriptures. The Papists. THe jesuite laboureth to prove, that the Scriptures are not simply necessary: error 11 which we deny not, for meat is not simply necessary, for God may preserve man without: so in respect of God nothing is simply necessary: God is not necessarily tied to use this or that means: but his arguments do tend to this end, to show that the scriptures are not necessary at all, and may be spared in the Church (so saith Petrus a Soto) the Scripture was not always extant, and it is not necessary unto faith: And the Scripture it not now so necessary 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 years, and yet true Religion was kept and continued, and why might not true Religion be as well preserved a 1500. year after Christ without scripture, as afore. We answer: It followeth not, because in times past God taught his church by a lively voice, that the written word is not necessary now: for the Lord saw it good, that his word should be left in writing, that we might have a certain rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinful age. And what else is this, but to control the wisdom of God, saying it is not necessary or needful for the Church, which the Lord saw to be needful: for if the Lord had thought it as good for us to be taught without Scripture, as in that simple and innocent age of the world (I mean innocent in respect of us) he would not have moved and stirred up his Apostles to write. 2 After the time of Moses, when the law was written, yet there were many that feared God amongst the Gentiles, which had not the Scriptures, as job, and the other his friends, Ergo the scripture not necessary. The jews also themselves used traditions more than Scriptures, as Psal. 44. v. 1.2. the fathers did report the works 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 been missing a long time. We answer. First, even the faithful amongst the Gentiles did read the scripture, as the Eunuch Act. 8. had the book of the Prophet Isay. Secondly, the jews declared the works of God unto their children, but the same were also written, as how the heathen were cast out before them, and of their deliverance 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 books of Moses. Thirdly, what though the Priests were negligent in preserving the scriptures, it is no good argument to prove that therefore they are not necessary, neither was the whole book of the law lost, but either Moses own manuscript, or the book of Deuteronomie. Yet he hath proved nothing. 3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many years, Ergo they are not necessary. We answer, it is a great untruth: for the old Testament the Church could not be without, and the new Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles: whose lively voice and preachings were unto them, as their writings are now to us. See now, what strong arguments they bring: the scriptures were not necessary in the time of the patriarchs, when God taught them by his own voice, they were not necessary in the time of the Prophets and Apostles, when they had men inspired of God to teach them, Ergo they are not now necessary, when neither God teacheth from heaven, neither have we any Prophets or Apostles to instruct us by heavenly revelations: nay rather because they were not necessary then, when they had other effectual means, notwithstanding they are necessary now, seeing there is no other way of instruction left unto us. The Protestants. THat the scriptures are necessary for the people of God, the reading, preaching, and understanding whereof is the only and ordinary means to beget faith in us, we thus prove out of the Scriptures themselves. 1 The scriptures contain necessary knowledge to salvation, which can not be learned but out of the scripture, Ergo they are necessary. The knowledge of the law is necessary, but that only is derived from the Scripture: as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7. he had not known lust to be sin, unless 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 mystical, and more strange unto our nature. 2 That whereby we are kept from error and doubtfulness in matters of faith is necessary: but this is performed by the scripture, Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth us from error. Math. 22.29. ye err not knowing the scriptures (saith our Saviour). The ignorance of scripture was cause of their error. Secondly, if our knowledge were only builded upon tradition without scripture, we should be doubtful and uncertain of the truth, so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus: I have written (saith he) that thou mightest be certain of those things, whereof thou hast been instructed: Hence we conclude, that although we might know the truth without scripture, as Theophilus did, yet we can not know it certainly without. 3 If the scriptures be not necessary, than we may be without them, but this can not be, Ergo the scriptures can not be spared: for then God had done a needless and superfluous work in stirring up the Prophets and Apostles to write. S. Paul saith, that what soever is written, is written for our learning, that through patience and consolation of the scriptures we might have hope. Rom. 15.4. The Lord saw in wisdom that his people could not be without the Scriptures, which are necessary for their learning, for their comfort, and to strengthen their hope: how then dare our adversaries say, that the scriptures are not necessary, seeing these things wrought in us by the scriptures, knowledge, consolation, hope, are most necessary. 4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict: Illud credo, quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset. de peccator. merit. & remiss. lib. 2.36. I think (saith he) that even concerning this matter (speaking of the original or beginning of the soul) the Scriptures would not have been silent, if we might not safely be ignorant of this matter, without danger of salvation, Ergo whatsoever is necessary to salvation, is only to be found in scripture (for other matters there not expressed, there in no danger in not knowing them) therefore the Scriptures by this Father's judgement are most necessary. THE SECOND PART OF THE SEVENTH question, of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Papists. THey do strangely affirm, that the Scriptures contain not all things necessary error 12 to be known concerning faith and manners, and that they are not sufficient without traditions. Bellarm. cap. 3.4. Lindanus a Papist saith, that the scriptures contain not all things necessary to salvation. Andradius, that their approved traditions are of equal authority with the Scripture▪ Ex Tilman. de verbo error. 2. 1 First, the jesuite thus reasoneth against the sufficiency of Scripture. There are diverse books of canonical Scripture lost and perished, Ergo that part of canonical scripture, which remaineth is not sufficient: that much is lost, he thus proveth: 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the books of Nathan & Gad. 2. Chron. 9 of the books of Ahiiah & jeedo: & in the new Testament. Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans: all those books are lost. We answer. First, we deny not, but that some books are now wanting, which were part of canonical scripture, & yet that which remaineth is sufficient: as some of Solomon's books are perished, which he wrote of herbs & plants, and many of his proverbs: the Lord saw that they were not so greatly necessary for us to salvation. Secondly, there is not so much wanting, as the jesuite would bear us in hand, for the books of the Prophets which he nameth, are the same with the books of the Chronicles & of the Kings, which no doubt were written by those Prophets. And as for the Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans, there was never any such: the text is, written from the Laodiceans, it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paul, unto the which he partly maketh answer in the Epistle to the Colossians, and therefore he would have it read also in their Church. 2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contrive in the scriptures the sum of faith and all necessary knowledge, it is very like Christ would have given them some express commandment so to do: but we read not of any such strict commandment, Ergo they had no such purpose. Bellarmine. We answer. First, they themselves dare not deny, but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirit: what is that else, but the commandment of God? Acts. 16.6. Paul was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia: and ver. 10. when he had seen a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing unto him: the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God: wherefore what they did by the secret moving of the spirit, was done at the commandment of God. Secondly, Apocal. 11.1.14.13. john is bidden to write that which he saw: no doubt the other Apostles had the like commandment. 3 There are many points, which we ought in no wise to be ignorant of, which the scriptures speak either obscurely of, or not at all. First, these things are obscurely and doubtfully set down in Scripture, the equality of the persons in Trinity, the proceeding of the holy Ghost, from the Father and the Son, the doctrine of original sin. We answer. First, if these things be found at all in the Scriptures, it is sufficient concerning the question we have in hand. Secondly, the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points, the equality of the persons is directly proved. 1. john. 5.7. the procession of the spirit. john. 15.26. the spirit is there said to be sent from the Father & the Son. And joh. 14.26. Original sin is described plainly by the Apostle. Rom. 5.12. though the name be not found in Scripture. Secondly, there are diverse things necessary to be known, not at all declared in Scripture. First, as that Marie continued a perpetual Virgin. We answer, the Scripture saith every where she was a Virgin, 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 Virgin before the birth of Christ. Secondly, to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept upon the lords day is necessary. Answer, there is no such necessity in it to salvation: neither needed the Church so much to have contended about it in times past: these are the mighty weapons, which our adversaries use. The Protestants. WE do not affirm, as our adversaries charge us, that all things necessary to salvation, are expressly contained in scripture, that is, in so many words: but this we hold, that all things, which are necessarily to be known of us, are either expressly declared in Scripture, or necessarily concluded out of Scripture, and so contained in them. We also grant, that it was not Gospel only which was written, but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by lively voice: the whole sum whereof and substance is contained in the written word: and so we conclude, that nothing necessary to salvation either concerning faith or manners, is else where to be found but in the holy Scriptures. 1 S. Paul saith: if we, or an Angel preach unto you otherwise then that which we have preached, let him be accursed, Ergo the Scripture containeth all things necessary. First, the jesuite answereth, that S. Paul speaketh not only of his writings, but also of his preachings which were not written. We answer, that the sum of all S. Paul's preachings is contained in his Epistles and other holy writings: for S. Paul 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 condemneth, those which preach any thing, not beside or otherwise, but contrary: and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden, but that which is contrary. We answer, whatsoever is imposed as necessary to salvation beside the Scripture, praeter Scripturas, is also contra Scripturas, contrary to Scripture, as are all Popish traditions, which they lay a necessity upon, both beside and contrary to Scripture. Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paul writeth so much, bring in another or contrary Gospel, as the Apostle saith ver. 7. as they did labour to corrupt and pervert that Gospel, which S. Paul taught. Therefore all traditions whether praeter, or contra, beside or contrary to Scripture, are notably by this place overthrown. 2 john. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, & that in believing ye might have life through his name, Ergo the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: for they suffice to work in us faith, and faith bringeth us to eternal life. First, Bellarmine answereth, that john speaketh only of that which he had written. Answer. If this one Apostles writings were able to work faith, the whole body of Scripture much more: but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings, of the Apostles, for he was the survivor of them all, & acknowledged their writings and approved them. Secondly (saith he) the Apostle saith not that those writings only suffice, but they are profitable, and referred to this end to work faith. Answer. The Scripture is not one of the means, but the sole, whole, and only means: for if they perfectly work faith, what need any other helps: but the first is true, for they do beget in us a perfect faith, which shall bring us to eternal life, Ergo they are the only means of faith. 3 The whole Scripture (saith S. Paul) is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and instruct in righteousness. 2. Tim. 3.16. Ergo it containeth all things necessary: for what else is requisite besides these four, to teach the right faith, improve error, to instruct in righteousness and virtue, & to correct vice? First they answer, the Apostle meaneth as well every book of Scripture, as the whole, every part therefore hath this perfection as well as the whole. But you will not say, that every book containeth all things necessary to salvation: therefore this perfection is not so to be taken. We answer. First, S. Paul understandeth the body of Scripture as ver. 15. thou hast known the Scriptures, he speaketh of them all. Secondly, if every part had these utilities, you might as well conclude that every word and syllable hath them, for they are parts of Scripture. Thirdly, it appeareth by these four great utilities here set down, that the Apostle meaneth not any part or parts of Scripture, but the whole, for every part of Scripture is not profitable for all these ends, but the whole. Secondly, they say it followeth not: the Scripture is profitable, therefore sufficient, they also grant it is profitable. Answer, but we conclude out of S. Paul, that the Scripture is not only profitable, but sufficient, as it followeth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute, perfectly instructed to every good work. If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct us, then are they sufficient, then need we no other helps. 4 Lastly, Augustine thus writeth, in Psal. 66. Ne putetis (saith he) ex alijs Scripturis petendum, quod forte hic deest. Think not (saith he) that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture. And in another place: In evangelio quaeramus, nam si ibi non invenimus, ubi inveniemus? Let us (saith he) seek to be resolved in the Gospel, if we find not there, where shall we find it? Ergo by the judgement of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be known, 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 Papists. error 13 THey understand by this word tradition, doctrine, precepts, and ceremonies, with other usages of the Church, which are not written in the scriptures. They do not say that all their traditions are necessary, but they make diverse kinds of them: some are universal, observed in the whole Church, some particular: some are free, some necessary, some are Apostolical, invented by the Apostles, some Ecclesiastical by the Church: so thus they conclude: all traditions decreed in Counsels, and judged Apostolical: & whatsoever the Church of Rome receiveth as Apostolical, are not to be doubted, but to be Apostolical indeed. Secondly, all Apostolical traditions are of equal authority with the writings of the Apostles. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. & 9 and they are that part of the word of God which is unwritten, as well as the scriptures are that part which is written: Let us see what arguments they bring for these traditions. 1 They give an instance of certain traditions, as the Baptism of infants, and the not rebaptising of those, which were before baptized by heretics: We answer, these two customs of the Church are grounded upon scripture: for as children were in the time of the law Circuncised, so are they now under the Gospel baptized: and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it belonged to them and their children, so doth it appertain to us and our children. Concerning the other point, that they whom heretics have once baptized, ought not to be baptized again: S. Augustine doth prove it out of the scripture. Ephe. 4. there is one Faith, one Baptism, Ergo not to be repeated. But now they come in with other traditions, as the Lenton fast, which they use most fond and superstitiously: the eight Ecclesiastical orders, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', Acolythistes, Readers, Exorcists, Doorkeepers, the worshipping of Images, with many other: these they would face us out to be Apostolical traditions, and to have been universally observed, which are but their vain brags, and Thrasonical cracks: they shall never prove them universal, much less Apostolical: And because they find no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by, they fly unto tradition, which is their only haven, where they hope to find succour: but all in vain. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9 Consul. Whitacher. quaest. 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceed and allege scripture for their traditions, as that place john. 16.12. I have many things to say, but you can not bear them now, Ergo say they, there are many traditions not written. We answer. First, it followeth not, because Christ declared not all things at that time, that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together. Nay whatsoever afterwards the Apostles learned of the spirit of God, they had heard before of Christ, for it was the office of the spirit, but to put them in remembrance of Christ's sayings. john. 14.26. which they had heard before, but understood them not, and so forgot them. Wherefore these things, which Christ forbeareth to speak, are the same things, which are contained in the Apostles writings. Secondly, if there were other matters, which Christ uttered not, how followeth it, nay what great presumption is it to say, that those trifles and apish toys, which the Papists use in their Idolatrous sacrifice, and their other beggarly ceremonies (which boys may well laugh at) are those profound matters, which the Apostles were not then able to conceive. 3 That of all other, they take to be an invincible place. 2. Thess. 2.15. keep the instructions or traditions, which ye have been taught either by word, or by Epistle, Ergo there are traditions besides scripture. We answer: when S. Paul wrote this Epistle, all the scriptures were not written: wherefore besides these two short Epistles, which do not contain the sum of the Gospel, nor all necessary precepts, he by his preaching supplied, what was wanting, and so declared unto them the whole mystery of the Gospel, 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 contained. This then is but a weak argument: the Thessalonians had other instructions and traditions beside the two Epistles written unto them, Ergo they had other traditions, beside all the writings of S. Paul and the other Apostles: this is their main and weighty argument. The Protestants. FIrst, we grant, that all things are not written which our Saviour Christ and the Apostles taught, and that it was the Gospel, which they preached, as well as this which is written: yet in substance they preached the same Gospel, which now is expressed in the scripture: neither was there any necessary precept delivered in their Sermons, which is not now to be found in the scriptures. Secondly, we deny not but there were certain rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diverse churches, which were not committed to writing, because they were not to continue and endure for ever in the Church: as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstain from strangled, and from blood. Thirdly, we also grant that the Church may use external rites and orders either left by tradition, or ordained by the Church for decency and comeliness, and tending to edification. But we constantly affirm, that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessary to salvation beside scripture: wherein all things are contained necessary to salvation, both concerning faith and manners. 1 It is not lawful, as to take aught from the word of God, so to add any thing unto it. Deut. 12.32. Apocal. 22.18. But they which bring in traditions necessary beside the scriptures, do add unto them, Ergo. To the proposition the jesuite answereth, that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden, for the Prophets did write after Moses, & the Apostles after the Evangelists. We answer: that those holy men had authority from God to compile scripture, if the Papists have the like Apostolic authority for their traditions, let them show it, and we will believe them. Secondly, the Prophets did but explain Moses, and expound the law, and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries upon the Gospel: this therefore was no addition, because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way. To the assumption they answer, that their traditions are but expositions of Scripture. We answer, their traditions are clean contrary to Scripture, as the worshipping of Images, and the sacrifice of their Mass: and they add to Scripture, making it unperfect, saying, it doth not contain all things necessary to salvation. Wherefore they can not escape that curse, which they run into that add to the word of God. 2 All traditions among the jews besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3. Ergo all unwritten traditions now must be abolished. The jesuite answereth. First, Christ condemned not the ancient traditions of Moses, but those which were newly and lately invented. Answer, first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses: Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures, not run unto traditions. Secondly, these seemed to be ancient traditions, bearing the name of Elders traditions, and they were in great authority amongst, the jews: most like because of some long continuance. Secondly (saith he) Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions. Answer. First, their traditions were not openly and plainly evil and pernicious, but had some show of holiness, as the washing of pots, and tables, and beds. I would the Papists did not here take themselves by the nose, whose traditions come nearer to open impiety, and blasphemy, then theirs did. Secondly, Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions, therein condemneth all traditions not written, besides the Scripture. 3 If Paul preaching the whole Gospel. Act. 20.27. did say none other things than Moses and the Prophets, than all things necessary to salvation are contained in the Scriptures. For it can not be said to be a whole and perfit Gospel, if any thing necessary to salvation be wanting. But Paul preached nothing, but out of Moses and the Prophets. Act. 26.22. Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith: we having beside Moses and the Prophets, the holy writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. 4 Last of all, although we might multiply many arguments, but these I trust, strongly concluding out of Scripture, may serve as a sufficient bulwark against all Popish paper▪ bullets. Let us hear in the knitting up the judgement 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 external rules, and ceremonies, of the which we have no certain rule out of Scripture, the custom of the people of God, and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law: but concerning matters of faith and good manners the Scriptures do give certain rules: as in another place: In ijs quae apart in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi, De doctrine. Christian. 2.9. all things appertaining to faith, and the rule of life, are plainly expressed in the Scripture, Ergo by the sentence of Augustine, traditions besides scripture have nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners, but do consist only in external rites and customs of the Church. THE SECOND GENERAL CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING THE CHURCH. Having now finished the questions between our adversaries and us, concerning the Scriptures, and word of God, which all do belong to the Prophetical office of Christ: in the next place such controversies are to be handled as do concern the Kingly office of Christ. And seeing the Church of Christ is his kingdom, where he ruleth and reigneth, we must entreat of the Church: and first in general of the whole, and in special of the parts and members. This present controversy concerning the Church in general standeth upon five principal questions. 1 Of the definition of the Catholic Church: two parts of the question. First, whether wicked men and infidels, be true members of the Church. Secondly, whether the Catholic Church be invisible. 2 Whether the Catholic Church may err, and whether the visible Church may fail upon earth. 3 Concerning the true notes and marks of the Church. 4 Of the authority of the Church: two parts. First, whether the Church have authority in matters of faith beside the Scriptures, and whether we ought to believe in the Church. Secondly, concerning the ceremonies of the Church. 5 Whether the Church of Rome be the true Church: two parts. First, whether it be the Catholic Church. Secondly, whether the Church of Rome be a true visible Church: of these now in their place and order. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE definition of the Catholic Church. The Papists. THe Catholic Church (say they) is a visible company of men professing the same faith and Religion, and acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be their chief pastor, and the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Bellarmin. de Eccles. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Canisius capit. de precept. Eccles. articul. 9 Lindanus. lib. 4. cap. 84. The Protestants. THe Catholic and universal Church is the invisible company of the faithful elected and chosen to eternal life. john. 10.16. A particular Church is a member of the universal and Catholic Church, and it is a visible company and congregation of men, amongst whom the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments rightly administered: in the which visible congregation, there may be and are many hypocrites, evil and unfaithful men found, and shallbe to the end of the world. Ex Amand. Polano. So then between the universal and particular Church, there is a triple difference. First, the one is dispersed over all the world, the other in some one country, city or any certain place. Secondly, the universal consisteth only of the elect, the particular both of good and bad. Thirdly, the Catholic is invisible, the other is visible and to be seen. The question between us and our adversaries, is about the universal Catholic Church, which they do falsely define in three points. First, they hold that wicked men are true members of the Catholic Church. Secondly, they allow not this distinction of the Church visible and invisible, but do affirm that the Catholic Church is visible. Thirdly, they make the Catholic Church to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Concerning this last point, it belongeth to the controversy of the Bishop of Rome, and therefore we will not touch it in this place. The other two are now to be handled in this question as two parts thereof. THE FIRST PART OF THIS FIRST question, whether wicked men and infidels may be true members of the Church. The Papists. THey affirm that not only the predestinate, but even reprobates also may belong unto the Church, and be true members thereof. Bellarmin. Lib. 3. the error 14 Eccles. cap. 7. Nay they deny that the elect which are unborn, and not yet called, do appertain to the Church of Christ. Rhemists. annot. in. 1. Tim. 3. Sect. 10. This then is generally their opinion, that there is no internal grace or virtue required in the members of the Church, but only the external and public outward profession. Bellarmin. cap. 2. And therefore they doubt not to say that even wicked men and reprobates remaining in the public profession of the Church, are true members of the body of Christ. Rhemists. annot. in johan. 15. Sect. 1. 1 They first allege certain places of Scripture, as Math. 3. the Church is compared to a barn floor, where there is both chaff and corn. Math. 13. to a net cast into the sea, where all manner of fish are gathered together. 2. Tim. 2. to a house, wherein there be vessels of honour and dishonour, Ergo both good & bad are members of the Church. Bellarmin. cap. 7. lib. 3. We answer. All these places must be understood of the visible Church: which is known by the public preaching of the word, and therefore Math. 3. compared to a fan, and Math. 13. to a draw net, the Apostles, pastors and teachers are the fisher men. Wherefore we deny not but that wicked men may be in the Church, but not of it: yea they may be members of the visible Church for a time, but can not be truly engraffed into the body of Christ. Fulk. annot. johan. 15. Sect. 1. 2 The Church (say they) is compared to a body. 1. Cor. 12. as in the body there are some parts, which have neither sense nor life: so in the Church there are some members, which have neither faith nor charity, which is the life of the Church, Ergo wicked men may be right members of the Church. Bellarm. cap. 10. there may be also some fruitless branches in the vine, and so evil men may be members of Christ. Rhemist. annot. 15. johan. 1. every branch not bearing fruit in me shallbe cast forth, Ergo there may be fruitless branches in Christ. We answer to the first, who would have said, as the jesuite doth, that there are parts in the body, that receive neither life nor sense of the body: doth he mean the nails and hears, as he seemeth to give instance in the end of the Chapter: but they are no parts of the body but excrements: he is so deep in his sophistry, that he hath forgotten Philosophy: and yet they receive some gift from the body, for they grow & increase, but the wicked receive no grace at all from the Church. The Rhemists yet are more reasonable, that say the wicked in the church, are as ill humours and superfluous excrements in the body, rather than lively parts thereof. 1. johan. 2. Sect. 10. To the second, is a dead bow or a branch, I pray you, any part of the tree? I think not: the tree can not conveniently spare any one of the parts thereof: but the dead parts are hurtful and cumbersome, and it doth the tree good to cut them of. But that they have prevented us, we would have used no better argument against them, than this drawn from the resemblance of a man's body: for as what is in the body receiving no life nor power from the body is not properly a part of the body, howsoever it seem to be joined to the body: so the wicked although they be in the outward face of the Church, yet because they are not partakers of the spiritual life thereof by Christ, are not truly to be judged members of it. 3 If wicked men should not be right members of the Church, but the faithful and predestinate, we should be uncertain which is the true Church, which is not to be admitted, because the whole doctrine, and all the principles of Religion do depend of the testimony of the Church. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 10. We answer. First, although it is necessary that the true Church should be certainly known, yet not for that cause, which the jesuite pretendeth: for the Religion of Christians is grounded upon the Scriptures, and although the true Church doth give a notable testimony thereunto, yet doth not our faith depend upon their witness, testimony, or allowance. Secondly, the true visible Church is certainly known by the preaching of the word and the right use of the Sacraments: so that we doubt not but there is the true Church, where we find these marks: neither is it needful to know the estate of every particular member thereof, for so long, as all actions in the Church are directed and ordered by the rule of God's word, we need not to doubt to commit our selves to that Church, howsoever otherwise men do stand before God: and yet, so much as is necessary, the faithful may be judged & known by their fruits. Thirdly, though we admit that wicked men are members: yet the uncertainty remaineth still: for they themselves hold that neither men not baptized, or persons excommunicate, or heretics can be of the Church: but many may live in the Church, whom we know not to be baptized, which may be ipso facto, by the deed doing excommunicate without public sentence, and heretics also: wherefore even amongst themselves they are uncertain, who are members of the Church. The Protestants. WE hold that the Catholic Church consisteth only of the predestinate, and comprehendeth the universal number of all those which shallbe saved, not only those now living on earth, Fulk. annot. 1. johan. 2. Sect. 10. Fox. pag. 609. but all that have been since the beginning of the world: of this Church S. Paul was even being a persecuter, for he was never a member of the devil nor reprobate, as john Husse saith articul. 2. Of this Church judas the traitor never was, though he were reputed for a Disciple of Christ for a while Huss. articul. 7. Therefore the wicked and reprobate though they live in the outward assembly of Christians, are no more the true members of Christ, than the tars in the field may be counted wheat or good corn. 1 The true members of Christ, are also his sheep, the wicked are not the sheep of Christ, Ergo neither his members. The sheep of Christ hear his voice: they do not hear his voice, john. 10. vers. 3. Ergo if they shall answer, that hypocrites and wicked men do hear Christ's voice, so long as they continue in the outward profession of Christians, we thus improve it: Christ's sheep do follow him in life and example john. 15.4. but so do not they. If it shallbe yet answered that they may also a while walk in Christ's steps: this is not enough, for all Christ's shallbe saved. ver. 9 wherefore the Gospel understandeth such followers, as continue to the end. 2 Christ is the head of his Church, and all the parts thereof, but he is not the head of the wicked & reprobate, Ergo. The jesuite granteth that he is the head, even of those parts that shall perish. Bellarmin. cap. 7. We thus answer, Christ is the head only of those, for whom he gave himself. Ephe. 5.23.25: but he gave not himself for the wicked, Ergo. If this be denied, we thus proceed, Christ died only for those whom he sanctifieth and cleanseth, to make them a glorious Church without spot and wrinkle. Ephe. 5.26.27. But this can not agree any wise to the wicked, Ergo. 3 The Church of God is the whole family of the children of God in heaven and earth, Ephe. 3.15. they both make but one Church, the wicked are not of this family: for who would say that the Saints in heaven, and wicked and reprobate men upon the earth, are fellow servants, and of one household, Ergo they are not of the Catholic Church. 4 Of all other that is a most evident place. 1. john. 2.19. they went out of us, but were not of us, Ergo heretics and reprobates are not of the church. Bellarmine answereth: though they were not of us, that is, of the Church: animis & voluntate, in soul, and mind, and purpose of hart, yet they were of us, externa professione, in external profession. Thus they are not ashamed, such is there great boldness, to contradict the scriptures, for the Apostle saith, non erant ex nobis, they were not of us: they say, yes, forsooth, after a sort, erant ex nobis, they were of us: the Apostle saith nay, they say yea, he saith indeed exierunt ex nobis, they went out of us, which soundeth nothing like, as erant ex nobis, they were of us, as the jesuite subtly would conclude. De Baptis. lib. 6. cap. 3. 5 Let Augustine speak for us both, Illa columba, unica, pudica, casta, sponsa sine macula & ruga non intelligitur, nisi in bonis, justis, sanctis. That lovely dove (saith he) the chaste, undefiled, and unspotted spouse (that is the Church of God) is only understood of those that are righteous, faithful, holy, Ergo the wicked are not of the Church, which is the spouse of Christ. THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, whether the Catholic Church be invisible. The Papists. THey do affirm that the Catholic Church is and hath been always visible: error 15 not so visible, because it might be seen, but that it hath been always actually visible, & not seen only unto the members of the church, but notoriously known to the whole world. Rhemens. annot in Math. cap. 5. Sect. 3. Neither do they mean any particular Church so to have been visible, but the universal catholic church, which they define to be a visible congregation of all faithful men. Canisius. cap. de fide & Symbol. articul. 18. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 12. ration. 7. 1 The foundation of the Church is visible: therefore the Church is visible: the proportion they prove thus: for whether we affirm Christ, or Peter to be the foundation of the Church: both of them are now visible in him which is the Vicar of Christ, and Peter's successor. We answer. First, we utterly deny either Peter to be the foundation of the Church, or else the Pope to be his lawful successor: for Peter is no more the foundation of the Church, than all the Prophets and Apostles. Ephe. 2.20. whose doctrine is the foundation, not their persons. And as for the Pope, we care not so much for outward succession in place, which notwithstanding they can not prove to have been perpetual without interruption, as we do require a succession of faith and doctrine. Secondly, we affirm that Christ is the foundation, but not the visible beholding of Christ, with the carnal eyes, but believing in his name, for when Peter had uttered that notable confession of Christ, he said that flesh and blood had not revealed it but his father in heaven: but if the beholding of Christ, had given Peter a sight of the foundation, them flesh had revealed it unto him, his carnal eyes had brought him to Christ. Thirdly, we may much better return this argument upon themselves: that because the foundation of the Church, which is faith in Christ, is invisible, therefore the Church is invisible. 2 They heap up many places of Scriptures, but to small purpose as Math. 18. tell the Church. Acts. 15. when they came to jerusalem they were received of the Church, Philip. 3.6. Paul persecuted the Church: how could the church be persecuted, how could it receive the Apostles, if it were not visible? Bellarmin. cap. 12. We answer, what goodly reasons here be: a particular church such as was at jerusalem may be seen, Ergo the catholic and universal. Secondly, a particular church may be sometime visible, Ergo always. Thirdly, the church is visible unto the faithful, as in time of persecution, for to Paul it was not known, when he persecuted it, but only to the brethren, Ergo it is visible to the world. For these three points they must prove that the catholic church not a particular is visible, that the Church is not sometime but always 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 sun. Psal. 19 The Church is as a City upon an hill, Math. 5. Ergo it is always visible. Bellarmin. ibid. Rhemist. Math. 5. Sect. 3. We answer. First, the Apostles themselves, even at this time, when Christ spoke these words unto them, were not so in sole, or in monte, in the sun, or upon the hill, that they were seen of the world, nay they were not seen nor acknowledged of the Scribes and pharisees in jewrie: the Church is seen of the faithful, it is visible to them that search for her out of the Scriptures: they that can see the mountain, shall see the City, the mountain is Christ, the City is the Church. No marvel if the Church be not always 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, heretics and false teachers fly into the desert and into secret places, Math. 24. ver. 26. But the truth is not ashamed: the Apostles confessed Christ, even before Kings and Princes, Mark 13.19. so Augustine expoundeth it. Cont. Faustum. lib. 13. cap. 13. The Protestants. COncerning the catholic church, we hold, that because, it is an article of our faith, it is always unto the world invisible, and not to be espied but by the eyes of faith. Fulk. Math. 5. Sect. 5. Concerning particular churches▪ if by visible, they understand that which may be seen, so we grant they are always visible. Fulk. Act. 11. v. 24. If for that which is actually visible: we say it is not so always 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 mountain, which might be touched, but to the City of the living God, the celestial jerusalem, etc. Ergo the church is invisible, and here opposed to the visible hill of Sinai. Bellarmine answereth, that this is understood of the triumphant church in heaven, not of the militant upon earth. To this we make answer, the Apostle understandeth the whole universal church in heaven and earth, which both make but one family, Ephe. 3.15. for here he nameth not only the spirits of just men which are in heaven, but the faithful upon earth, whose names are written in heaven: the congregation (saith he) of the first borne: the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a gathering together, collection or congregation, which must needs be understood of men upon earth. Again (saith he) ye are come, not ye shall come: they had now left the smoking mountain Sinai, and were come to Zion, the church under the Gospel. Wherefore this is a most firm and invincible argument: the catholic church is the universal number of Gods chosen in heaven and in earth, Ergo invisible. 2 We will give an instance: In the days of Elias the church was not visible, for he camplaineth, and saith that he was only left alone, 1. King. 19.10. Ergo the church is not always visible. Annot. in Rom. 11. ver. 4. The Rhemistes answer. First, at that time the church was visible in judaea, the soldiers were numbered to 1000 thousand, 2. Chron. 17. We answer again. First, belike they have taken a more exact account of them then the Lord himself: for he (saith he) had reserved 7000, 1. King. 19.18. that had not bowed their knees to Baal, they say there were ten hundred thousand. Again Elias, if he had known such a number, could not have been left so comfortless, as in grief of hart to desire to die. But be it granted that the church was visible in judaea at this time, though it were not so to Elias: yet where was that visible church in the days of Achaz, and Manasseh, when judaea fell also to Idolatry? Thirdly, to believe that there is an holy catholic church is an article of our faith, Ergo it is invisible. Bellarmin answereth. First, the holiness of the church is invisible. We reply, so the church is partly visible, partly invisible by his confession. First, why then do ye define the catholic church to be a visible congregation, if it be not wholly & altogether visible? they know that difinitio must convenire definito, the definition must agree wholly to that which is defined: but now it is not: for they say, the catholic holy church is partly visible as it is a church, partly invisible as it is holy. Secondly, do we not say in the Creed, Credo Catholicam, as well as Credo Sanctam, I believe a catholic church, as well as I believe the holy church? then it is also invisible, as it is catholic, because this also is part of the article: see I pray you what shifting is here? Secondly, he answereth, that some thing is seen in the church, some thing believed: for we see that visible company of men, which make the church, but whether that company be the true church, we do not see it, but believe it. We reply again. First, the jesuite hath not yet proved that some thing is seen in the church, some thing believed: but one thing is seen, namely the congregation as they are men, another thing is believed, that they are the church: the sight and belief now by his own confession are not both in the church. Secondly, we deny that the universal company of the catholic church, which is the number of the predestinate can be seen, therefore all is believed, and nothing seen. 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 members do know themselves to be of the Church: therefore faith is requisite in the true members of the church: them unfaithful men can not be true members of the church, which point the jesuite strongly before maintained against us. Mendacem oportet esse memorem, a liar had need have a good memory: lest he tell contrary tales, and so hath the jesuite here, for before he denied that faith was requisite to make a true member of the church: here he saith that without faith a member can not be known, much less therefore made. 3 The Rhemistes confess in these very words, that in the reign of (their imagined and supposed) Antichrist the external state of the Roman church, and public intercourse of the faithful with the same shall cease, and that there shallbe only a communion in hart with it, and practise in secret, Annot. in. 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 10. Where then (I pray you) shallbe your tabernaculum in sole, civitas in monte, candela splendens in domo: your tabernacle in the sun, your City in a mountain, your candle shining in the house, that is, say you, in the world. Math. 5. Sect. 3. Ergo out of their own words we conclude, that the church shall not always be visible, and notoriously known in the world. Lastly, we will conclude with Augustine. Aliquando in sola domo Noah Ecclesia erat: in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat: in solo Loth & domo eius Ecclesia erat: in solo Henoch Ecclesia erat: Sometime the church was only in henoch's house, Enarrat. in Psal. 128. sometime only in Noah, some time in Abraham alone, in Loath & his house. How then hath the church been always so visible and notoriously known to the world, when it hath lain hidden some time in one house, yea in one man. THE SECOND QUESTION, whether the Church may err. THis question is divided into two parts. First, whether the catholic church may err at all, or not? Secondly, whether the visible church upon earth may fall away from God into Idolatry and apostasy. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Catholic Church may err in doctrine. The Papists. THey do teach that the catholic church can not possibly err, not only in matters absolutely necessary to salvation, but not in any thing, which error 16 it imposeth and commandeth, whether it be contained in the word of God or not: yea that it can not err in these things, which beside the word of God are commanded. And by the church here, they do mean not only the Pastors and Bishops, but the whole company of the faithful: so that neither that which all the pastors of the church do teach, can be erroneous, nor what is received generally of the whole church. Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 14. Rhemist. annot an johan. 14. ver. 16. 1 The church (say they) is the pillar of truth▪ 1. Tim. 3. Ergo it can not err. We answer. First, it is no otherwise the pillar of truth, than a virgin without spot and wrinkle, Ephe. 5.27. As that place doth not privilege the church from all sin and imperfection of life, so neither doth this place exempt her from all error in doctrine. Secondly, she is called the pillar of truth in respect of us, because the truth is preserved in the true church, and is not else where to be found: not because the truth dependeth upon the church: for S. Paul sendeth not Timothy in this place to learn of the church, as though it could not possibly be deceived: but (saith he) these things have I written, that thou mayst know how to behave thyself in the house of God. ver. 14.15. Ergo the word of God is the rule of truth, and the church hath no warrant, to be kept from error, but as she is lead and governed by the word of God. Thirdly, the argument followeth not, for Peter was a pillar and yet erred. Gallat. 2.9.11. 2 They heap many arguments together. The church hath the spirit of God, to lead it into all truth, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Math. 16. God hath given it Apostles, teachers, Evangelists to keep it in the truth. Ephe. 4. Christ hath prayed for the church, that it may be sanctified in the verity. john. 17. Christ prayed that Peter's faith should not fail, Ergo the church can not err. Rhemens. annot. 1. Timoth. 3.15. We answer: every one of the elect hath the spirit of God, neither shall the gates of hell prevail against the faith of any one of the elect to overthrow it: Christ prayeth for every one of his Disciples that they may be sanctified in the truth. john. 17.20. wherefore it followeth as well by these arguments, that no one faithful man can fall into error. The pastors and teachers, so long as they follow the Apostles doctrine, may keep the church from error, but it is not gathered out of that place. Ephe. 4. that the pastors if they serve from God's word can not err. Concerning Peter, Christ prayed for him that his faith should not fail in that grievous tentation, which he fell into. Secondly, he prayed not for him as governor of the church, but as he prayeth for every faithful man. john. 17.23. Thirdly, for all this prayer Peter erred▪ Gallat. 2. 3 This argument was used in the Council of Basill: the Church is without spot, and wrinkle. Ephe. 5.27. Ergo without error. We answer. First, S. Paul speaketh there of a glorious church, such as it shallbe in the kingdom of heaven, not of the church as it is upon earth: so revel. 7.14. The elders, which sat round about the throne, which are the Saints in heaven, were seen in long white robes, which they had washed white in the blood of the Lamb. 2 It followeth out of this place that the church is as well without sin, as free from error: which the divines in the Council did also grant. But seeing by their own confession every member of the church, being clothed in this mortal flesh sinneth, how can the church be without sin? If the church consist of men, and all men are sinners, how is the church free? If all the parts and members be sinful, how is not the whole also polluted with sin? If all the parts of the body be sick and diseased, how can the whole be sound? The church also is not ashamed to confess herself to be black. Cant. 1.5. she shallbe made beautiful and glorious without all spot & blemish in the kingdom of God: and even now also is made righteous and just before God through Christ: not because she hath no sin, but because it is remitted: and although some errors and imperfections remain, yet shall they be no hindrance to her salvation. The Protestants. WE doubt not to say, that the church of God may err in some points not necessary to salvation: but can not fall clean away from God into any damnable error. Fulk. annot. in Ephe. 5. ver. 29. That the church may err, as we say, we do show it thus: and by the Church, we understand the whole company and congregation, the pastors with the people. 1 When our Saviour Christ suffered, the church erred in faith, Ergo it may err: the proposition is thus proved. The church was either in the Scribes and pharisees, or else in the Apostles: but both of them erred: they in putting Christ to death, the other in their incredulity, not believing rightly in the resurrection of Christ. Bellarmine answereth, first that the pharisees were privileged not to err, Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 17. only till the coming of Christ. We reply again. First, after Christ was come they sat in Moses chair, and Christ biddeth they should be heard. Math. 23.2. if they erred not afore, neither could they now, for they were not displaced out of Moses chair: but the truth is, they never had any such privilege not to err. Secondly, if the pharisees were now prone to error, then by our adversaries own confession, they ceased to be the church, Ergo the church was not now visible, for in them it was not: and the Apostles fled from Christ, and shifted for themselves: how could then the church be visible to the world? Secondly, the jesuite answereth concerning the Apostles. First, the Apostles were not yet entered into their office and Bishopric, but only appointed to it, and therefore they might err. We reply again. First they were not only appointed Apostles, but partly already they had exercised their Apostleship: for they were sent forth to preach the Gospel, and had power and commission to work miracles, and heal diseases Math. 10▪ how then is not the jesuite ashamed to say, that they were not yet Pastors nor Apostles? Secondly, if the pharisees erred, and the Apostles erred, than all the world was in error, Ergo by their saying at this instant there was no church upon the earth, which is a great absurdity, for the church erreth not, they say. Secondly, (saith the jesuite) the Apostles erred not in faith: they were reproved for not believing the resurrection: which belief because they had not yet received, they could not lose it. We reply. First, though they had not erred in any material point: yet if there were any error at all in them, it is sufficient for our purpose: that they erred it is manifest, for they fled away from Christ. Secondly, he excuseth them for their infidelity concerning the resurrection, because this faith they had not yet received. But had not Christ (I pray you) often instructed them of this matter: and if this were no such error in them, than Christ was to sharp in reproving them for their infidelity. Thirdly, it appeareth, that they wholly were deceived concerning the Messiah: Luke. 24.21. the two Disciples say, they trusted that it had been he that should have delivered Israel: see then what weak answers these are: did these fellows think, that their gloss should not be examined? or that their dreams should be taken for oracles? 2 The church of the jews erred before our Saviour Christ's coming, Ergo the true church may err. The proposition is proved: In the time of the reign of good kings, they did offer sacrifice upon hill altars, but only to the Lord, which was an error. 2. Kings. 12.3.14.4. The feast of the Passeover was not kept so precisely according to God's word at any time before, no not in the reign of the best kings, as it was in the 18. year of josias reign, 2. King. 23.22. The feast of Tabernacles had not been so solemnly and truly kept from the days of josua, as it was in Nehemiahs' time▪ Nehem. 8.18. Ergo all this while the church of the jews erred somewhat in the external worship of God. Fulk. Ephes. cap. 5. Sect. 4. Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 7. 3 Augustine saith, Quomodo erit Ecclesia in isto tempore, perfecta sine macula & ruga, cuius membra non mendaciter confitentur se habere peccata. How can the church be perfect in this life, without spot or wrinkle, whose members do truly confess, that they are not without sin? Ergo the church sinneth and is imperfect, and why not subject to error? But in the Council of Basill it was denied, as ye heard, that the church could sin. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE visible Church may fail upon the earth. The Papists. error 17 THey hold that it is impossible that the visible church should utterly fail upon the earth, and fall from God, but that there shall always be a visible and known church upon the earth, having a perpetual succession of Pastors and Doctors, where the true worship of God shallbe preserved and kept. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13. 1 These and such places of Scripture they stand upon, Math. 16. the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Math. 28. I willbe with you to the end of the world. Psal. 88 his throne shallbe as the Sun, and endure as the Moon, Ergo the visible church shall not fail upon earth. Bellarmin. We answer: that these places must be understood, of the catholic and universal church, whereof we deny not, but every true particular church is a part. This church is the spouse of Christ, this church shall not perish, this is the kingdom of Christ, with this church will he always be present to the end of the world: we deny not but that the invisible church shall continue upon the earth so long as the world endureth. Secondly, those places are unproperly understood of the visible church, for therein are both good and bad: how then can that be the spouse of Christ, where there are many infidels and wicked ones, which have not espoused themselves unto him? how can it be called his kingdom, whereas it is not of all acknowledged? But in the true catholic church all and every one are espoused to Christ: all and every one have the kingdom of God within them, as it is Luke. 17. ver. 21. 2 They do abuse that place of S. Paul Ephe. 4.11. he gave some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the gathering together of the Saints: Ergo the church shall always be visible till all the Saints are gathered together. Bellarmin. cap. 13. Rhemistes. Ephes. 4. Sect. 5. We answer: this place proveth that the church hath never wanted pastors and teachers for the continuance of the truth, neither shall ever be without them, as the Lord said by the Prophet Isay. 59 ver. 21. My spirit, which is upon thee, & my words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor the mouth of thy seed for ever. We therefore deny not but that in all ages, yea in the most ignorant times of Popery, God raised up faithful teachers unto his church: although they were not mitred and croziard Bishops, neither could show any outward pomp or boast of any glorious succession: Such were Gulielmus de S. Amore, Arnoldus de nova villa. an. 1240. Berengarius, joachim Abbas, in the time of Innocentius 3. Wikclef, Bruto, Swinderby, Ex Foxi Protestat. Badby, and others about. anno. 1400. with many, which were not known to the world: for the truth never in any age wanted witnesses. By the continuance of the truth and right faith, we gather, that there have been always faithful teachers, though not notorious to the world, and shallbe: but who they were, and where they lived, what pomp, what authority they were of, it is not material to know: wherefore an outward visible succession of Bishops and Pastors is not necessary for the continuance of the truth: neither can it be concluded out of this place. 3 Thus they reason, there have been always some faithful men, which have outwardly professed their faith: for if they dissembled or cloaked their profession, than were they not faithful: Ergo the church hath been always visible, as in the time of persecution. Bellarmine. We answer. First, the jesuite doth clean pervert and change the state of the question: for he defineth a visible church, to be multitudo congregata, in qua sint praelati & subditi: a multitude or company gathered together, where there are both Prelates and Bishops, and people obedient unto them. And now he giveth an instance of persecution, wherein some faithful Christians may give an outward profession of their faith: where is now that multitude congregate together? where is that jurisdiction of Prelates? where is that visible and glorious succession? We deny not but that in time of persecution the faithful may be known to themselves: and yet some time they are not: for in Israel there were seven thousand faithful beside Elias, yet he knew none of them. But it followeth not, that therefore the church is then visible to the world, and notoriously known to men, for so the Rhemists say, in Math. 5. Sect. 3. & Act. 11. Sect. 3. Thus they fly manifestly from the question. The Protestants. WE deny not, but that the catholic universal church, as it hath hitherto continued since the beginning of the world, so shall it endure to the end: the Lord shall never want upon earth a company of faithful men, which shall truly serve him: though it be not necessary, neither hath always been seen, that they should be in any one place. A visible church we define to be a congregation of men, amongst whom the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administered: such a Church hath not always been, neither can we be assured that it shall always be found upon the earth, wherein the worship of God publicly and visibly is practised. 1 In the reign of Ahaz king of juda there was no visible church, where the pure worship of God was practised, for both Israel under Pekah, and juda under Ahaz, fell to Idolatry, and followed the custom of the Gentiles. 2. Kings. 16.3. yea Vriah the high Priest consented with the king to set up Idolatry. Likewise in the days of Manasseh, who did evil after the abomination of the heathen. 2. Kings. 21.2. there was no place, where God was publicly worshipped. for judah was corrupted, Israel was carried away captive, Ergo there was a time, when there was no visible Church. 2 In the Passion of our Saviour there was no visible church, such a church we still mean, as where there are, Prelati & subditi, pastors & oves, Prelates and people, pastors and sheep. We prove it thus. The visible Church was not amongst the pharisees and Priests, for they shamefully and wickedly erred. Bellarmin. 17. It was not among the Apostles, for they also erred, therefore after the Papists opinion they were not the Church: for the Church (say they) erreth not. Secondly he saith, they were yet but material parts, not formal, that is, not Bishops or Pastors, how then could there be a visible Church, which was without the formal and principal parts, that is Pastors and Bishops, Ergo there was then no visible Church. 3 When the abomination of desolation shall stand in the temple, & there shallbe a general defection and apostasy from the faith, then shall the visible church fail upon earth: But the first is true Math. 24.15. 2. Thess. 2.3. Ergo. To the first place the jesuite answereth that it must be understood of the destruction of the temple. cap. 16. But the Rhemists more liberal than so, affirm that it shallbe especially accomplished in Antichristes time, when as the sacrifice of the Mass shall utterly be abolished. annot. in Math. 24. ver. 15. To the next place, concerning that defection & apostasy, which S. Paul speaketh of, first he saith, that it shallbe a defection from the Roman Empire: but the Rhemists say, it shallbe a defection from most points of Christian Religion. Secondly, the jesuite answereth, that though it be a defection from the Roman faith, yet it shall not be general but particular: but the Rhemists better advised grant it shallbe a revolt of kingdoms, peoples, provinces: & the public intercourse of the faithful with the church of Rome shall cease, they shall only communicate with it in hart. annot. in 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 6. Now out of their own words we conclude: there shallbe a time when as the public service of God shall cease, there shallbe desolation in the Churches and temples of Christians: there shallbe then no public intercourse with the Church, but a private communicating in hart, Ergo there shallbe a time, when there shallbe no outward visible Church notoriously and famously known: Ergo our adversaries are in an error, & are condemned by their own mouth. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE notes and marks, whereby the true Church may be discerned and known. FIRST OF THE FALSE AND ERROneous notes of the Church. Our adversaries do devise many notes, whereby their Church is descried, as Bellarmine reckoneth up▪ 15. in order, to many (certain) to be found in a good Church: but there are six principal, which they do most stand upon: antiquity, universality, succession, unity, the power of miracles, the gift of prophesy. We must first touch these in order, and then come to the true and infallible notes of the Church. Of antiquity. Note. 1. THe Papists make great brags of the long continuance of their Church: yea that they can show the descent of their Church from Adam. Rhemistes. error 18 annot. in Act. 28. Sect. 5. But (alack) silly men they must come short of our saviour Christ's and the Apostles time, by five or six hundred years, for the most of the opinions, which they now hold. Let us examine their reasons. In any great change of Religion (say they) the authors of the Sect, the time when it began, the persons that oppugned it may be known: but no such thing can be showed of our Church (say they) as we can show of yours, we can tell them the year, the places, and ringleaders of their revolt, say our English Rhemists. annot. in 1. johan. 2. Sect. 9 Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 5. We answer. First, no marvel if Papistry herein do much differ from other heresies: they, as the heresies of the Arrians, Pelagians, Donatists, because they were not long to continue, suddenly broke out, and suddenly again were extinguished. But Papistry, being the prop and pillar of antichrist's kingdom, by whom the world must be deluded many years, was at the beginning to work closely and secretly, not breaking out at once into open impiety and blasphemy, but under pretence of holiness, to set a broach her deadly poison: therefore S. Paul calleth it a mystery of antiquity, which began even to work in his days. 2. Thess. 2.7. Secondly, we also answer, that all these things, the authors of their sects, the time, the persons that withstood them, may manifestly be detected: first concerning the time, we have a manifest prophesy, Apocal. 20. that Satan should be bound a thousand years, and afterward let lose: when no doubt Antichrist should begin to show himself to the world. Concerning this space of a thousand years, there are two probable opinions: some think they are to begin immediately after our Saviour Christ's time, and so counting a thousand years, all which time Satan must be bound, than Antichrist should begin to appear. Fox▪ pag. 426. Thus john Wicliffe expoundeth it. Others say the thousand years ought to begin after the three hundred years expired of persecution: for all that while it is most like Satan was let lose, when he raged with open mouth like a Lion against the Church and Saints of God: of this opinion was Walter Brute somewhat after wicliffe's time: who by this means maketh the prophesy of Daniel of 1290. days, Fox. 480. and that in the Apocalypse 12. of 1260. days, to agree with the thousand years of Satan's binding: for taking every day for a year, we shall come to .1290. years after Christ: when the thousand years must be expired, beginning from the three hundred years of persecution. If we count the thousand years from Christ, we shall come to the time of Hildebrand the seventh, who was Pope of Rome, a thousand years after Christ and upward: by whom the marriage of Ministers is thought first to have been forbidden: if we begin after the ceasing of persecution, which continued three hundred years, we shall fall into the year .1300. about the time of john Wicliffe, Fox. pag. 101. when the great rabble of Monks and Friars began to swarm, and superstition to increase. But we will take a little pain briefly to touch the authors of many superstitions in Popery, and of their erroneous and heretical opinions. Anno. 420. Zosimus Bishop of Rome did challenge a prerogative above other Churches, that it might be lawful to make appeals from other Churches to that sea: and to set the better colour upon it, he falsely alleged a decree of the Nicene Council, but there was no such thing found there: wherefore it was decreed in the Council of Carthage at that time, that none should appeal over the seas to Rome. Bonifice the third, purchased of the wicked Emperor Phocas the title of universal Bishop. Transubstantiation was first concluded against Berengarius anno. 1062. under Leo the ninth, but not publicly enacted before anno. 1216. under Innocentius the third. The Dominicke Friars brought in the same time, Fox. Martyrol. pag. 1147. and their Sect established by Innocentius the third. Auricular confession also was brought in anno. 1215. under the same Pope. Marriage first prohibited by Nicholas the second, Alexander the second, Gregory the seventh, about the year 1070. The Communion in one kind forged and invented, and decreed in the Council of Constance, not above two hundred years ago. By these few examples it may appear that it is false which the jesuite saith, that the authors of their sects and heresies can not be showed. Now we will briefly declare, what oppugners and gainsayers they have had in all ages, since their grossest opinions began to be received: Such were Bertramus and Berengarius about pope Hildebrands' time▪ that mightily impugned the gross opinion of Transubstantiation. Robertus Gallus 1291. Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, who was called malleus Romanorun, the mallet or hammer of the Romans anno. 1250. Franciscus Petrarcha 1350. johannes de rupe Scissa, who Prophesied against the Pope 1340. with many other, Fox. Protest. which ceased not to cry out against the abominable vices and erroneous opinions of the Church of Rome. Wherefore it is a great untruth, which the jesuite doth so stiffly avouch that we can not set down the pedigree & descent of their church and faith, and how it hath continually been resisted. 3 Now whereas they say, that they can name the ringleaders of our sect: we have none other masters and authors of our faith, than our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, by whose holy writings we refuse not to be tried: But you fly 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 pharisees bragged, that they were the Disciples of Moses: And as then the true church was not in those that sat in Moses chair, though they could allege great antiquity, but in Christ and his Apostles: so is not now the true Church to be discerned, by custom or number of years, but by that truth, which was taught and preached by our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles. Of Universality. Note. 2. Our Church is universal, say they, both in respect of time, person, & place, error 19 it hath always been in the world, in all countries and nations it hath flourished, Ergo it is the true Church. That it is universal, they first prove by the name of Catholic, which is, say they, by God's providence appropriate to them, which name they affirm without ground to have been imposed by the Apostles upon true believers. Rhem. in Act. cap. 11. Sect. 4. We answer. First, the name of Christians is a more honourable title than the name of Catholics: for it is manifest Act. 11.26. that this name was used in the Apostles time, and by the Apostles themselves allowed: but it is not certain that the name Catholic came from the Apostles. Again many heretics challenged this name to be called Catholics, who did not so easily obtain to be called Christians: which ancient and honourable name the Papists do despise, for in Italy and at Rome it is used as a name of reproach, to signify a dolt or a fool. Fulk. in Acts. 11.26. 2 We say that you do usurp this name, as the Donatists in Augustine's time would be called Catholics: for what is the name of Catholic, without the Catholic doctrine? They are the true Catholics, that profess the ancient and Apostolic faith: to us therefore, be it known to you, this name of better right appertaineth, then to you (o ye Papists) yet we have better arguments to prove our Church by, then by syllables and titles: Quasi nos (saith Augustine) huius nominis testimonio nitamur ad demonstrandam Ecclesiam, Epist. 48. & non promissis Dei. As though we (saith he) do lean upon this name to prove our Church by, and not rather upon the promises of God. Secondly, they prove their universality, by the multitude of people, that have received the Romish faith: and their Church (say they) hath replenished the greatest part of the world. They would prove this by the propagation of the Church, in the Apostles time, in Tertulian, Irenaeus, Hierome, Augustine, yea and afterward in Gregory's days: yea and now also besides many great countries in Europe, they have of their church in India, America, & the unknown parts of the world. Bellarmin. cap. 7. nota. 4. We answer. First, the truth is not always to be measured by the judgement or opinion of the multitude: follow not a multitude saith the Scripture to do evil: the greatest part is not the best: Christ calleth his flock pusillum gregem, a little flock, fear not little flock (saith he). Secondly, you have nothing to do with the Church, which was propagated in the Apostles time, nor for the space of five or six hundred years after Christ: it was not your Church, for the most of your heresies are more lately sprung up then so. And you need not brag of your universality now: for the Turk (I trow) hath a larger dominion than the Pope, and Mahometisme is as largely spread as Papistry, and further to: And for Europe, I hope you need not make your boast: the Pope had never less jurisdiction, than he hath now, and I trust every day, shall have less. But many (you say) in the new found countries, have been converted to your religion. In deed, if you had had grace, such an opportunity being offered as the Spaniards had, you might have won that simple people to Christ. But you thirsted more for their gold, then for their soul's health: it is notoriously known to the world, what extreme cruelty hath been wrought upon that innocent people. Was that a Catholic part of the Spaniards to keep dogs of purpose, to weary and destroy the inhabitants, to use them as horse and beasts, to plough, to carry, to dig? Thus by your cruelty, there were out of one small Island called Hispaniola, which was well peopled and inhabited, destroyed and rooted out in short time, two million of men and women, the story of Benzo an Italian is abroad to be seen of this matter: you have none or few of your Popish Catholics in those countries, but of your own brood, that have been sent thither, but enough of this. 3 We nothing doubt, but that our faith, the truth of the Gospel hath been long since known and published to the whole world. Those two conditions, which the jesuite putteth in, to make the Church universal, do help us very well: the first is, that it is not necessary, that all countries wholly should profess the Christian faith: but it sufficeth, if there be some of the church in every country: the second, it is not requisite, that this universality of the Church should be all at one time, but if it be done successive, that is, in diverse ages, one country to be joined to the Church after another, it is enough. Now keeping these two conditions, we shall easily prove our Church to be universal: for there are no countries in Europe, and few in the whole world, wherein there are not some of our faith, namely that abhor worshipping of Images, do only hope to be saved by faith in Christ without merit, and believe in the rest, as we do. And again taking one age after another, we shall easily make it good, that our faith at times hath spread itself over the whole world. The third Note of Succession. THey make great boast of the long and perpetual succession of their Pope's error 20 from the Apostles for the space of these 1500. years and more: condemning all Churches, which can not show the like order of succession. Bellarmin. cap. 8. Rhemist. annot. in Ephe. 4. ver. 13. We answer. First, they can not show such an entire and perpetual succession, without any interruption or discontinuance for so many years: for sometime there were two, sometime three Popes together, and this schism continued 29. years, till the Council of Constance, where three Popes were deposed at once, Benedict 13. the Spanish Pope: Gregory 12. the French Pope, and john 23. the Italian Pope. 2 If succession be so sure a note of the Church, it is found also in other Churches beside: as in Constantinople, where hath been a perpetual succession, as Nicephorus saith, from S. Andrew the Apostle: in Antioch from S. Peter: and in other Churches in Grecia. The jesuite here is driven to his shifts, and hath nothing to say, but this: that the argument followeth negatively, that where there is no succession, there is no Church: not affirmatively, that where any succession can be showed, there straightways it should follow there is a true Church: so by the jesuits own confession he hath made but a bad argument for the Church of Rome: we have a perpetual succession of Popes from the Apostles time, Ergo we are the Church. It followeth not: saith the jesuite, we grant it. Why then a little before did he call it insolubile argumentum, an insosoluble and unanswerable argument. 3 Thirdly we say, that a succession of persons in the same place, without succession of doctrine, which they can not show, is nothing worth. A succession of the Apostolic faith and doctrine proveth a continuance of pastors and teachers, and not contrariwise. We have the Apostolic faith, and therefore, we doubt not but that there have been continually in the Church faithful teachers, by whom that doctrine hath been preserved and kept: though they were not famous, nor carried a glorious show in the world. For that outward succession is not necessary, neither so much to be stood upon. Augustine, when he had alleged succession against heretics, concludeth thus: Quanquam non tantum nos de istis documentis praesumamus, Epist. 165. quam de Scriptures sanctis: although (saith he) we presume not so much upon these documents as of holy Scripture. The fourth Note, of Unity. error 21 Our adversaries do stand much upon unity: which they think is the glory of their Church: they do embrace unity amongst themselves, and all join in obedience to their head. Their unity also is seen, say they, in the wonderful consent of all their writers in matters of Religion: and the notable agreement and concord in the decrees of their Popes and Counsels. But as for us, and our Church, they say it is full of rents, schisms and divisions. Bellarm. First of the unity of their church, and then of the unity of ours. Their unity, they say, is partly seen in their obedience, and loving society and fellowship, partly in their Religion and doctrine. First for their concord and love one toward another: we will take some pains, a little to decipher it. About the year of the Lord 900. there was pretty sport amongst the Popes, nine of them one after another. Stephen the sixth abrogated all his predecessor Formosus decrees: and not content with that, he took up his body which was buried, and cut two fingers of his right hand off, and commanded his body to be buried again. After him succeeded Pope Rhomanus, Theodorus the second, john the tenth, who ratified and confirmed the doings of Formosus. After them followed Pope Sergius, who disannulling all their acts, took up again the body of Formosus, cut of his head, and commanded his body to be thrown into Tiber the great river in Rome. Fox. pag. 146. Was not here great amity and love think you, amongst the Popes? Another notable example of their unity we have in Pope Vrbanus time the 6. against whom stood up a contrary Pope in France named Clement: it is worth the noting, what coil these two pope's kept: between whom many battles were fought, many thousands slain. Pope Vrbane beheaded five Cardinals together after long torments. Bishop Aquilonensis, because he did ride no faster, was had in suspicion, and slain and cut in pieces by Urbans soldiers, at his commandment, Fox. pag. 434. behold here I pray you the unity of these Catholics. We will adjoin one other example, no longer since, then in king Henry the eights time. The Duke of Bourbon being the leader of the Emperor's army, laid siege to Rome, and sacked it: the soldiers broke in upon the Pope, which was Clement the seventh being at Mass, slew diverse of the Priests, and one Cardinal called Sanctorum quatuor: they laid siege to the Castle of S. Angel, so long till the Pope yielded himself. The soldiers daily that lay at the siege, made jests 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 voice they would call him Antichrist. See here is their Catholic obedience to their chief Bishop. Fox. pag. 988. Thus much concerning their unity and concord in life. Let us likewise take a view of their unity in doctrine. We heard before how Pope Stephen and Sergius abolished the decrees of Formosus: how then saith the jesuite, that the decrees of Popes do consent together? The Council of Basile, and Constance before that decreed, that the Pope should be subject to general Counsels: but this Canon was afterward reversed, and now generally the Papists hold the contrary, that the Pope is above Counsels. Let us see the consent of their writers: Bellarmin. lib. 1. de verbo. cap. 12. maintaineth against Lyranus, Driedo, Genebrard, and others, that judith was in Manasses time. Against Alphonsus de Castro, that heretics are no members of the Church. Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4. Against johannes de turre cremata, that faith is not necessary to make one a member of the Church. Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. And every where the jesuite taketh great liberty to confute and control other his fellow Papists: belike having found out some starting holes, that they either knew not, or were ashamed to creep into, as the jesuite doth. But (saith he) we deny not but that we have dissensions, but they are not in material points, but in such things as appertain not to faith. I marvel, he blusheth not thus to say, himself knowing the contrary. Is it not a substantial point and belonging to faith, to know which books are canonical Scripture, which are not? But in this question they do much disagree. Caietanus the Cardinal saith, that we must acknowledge no Scripture, but that which was either written, or approved by the Apostles. But Catharinus a Papist, doth reject that opinion. Hugo Cardinalis, Arias Montanus, do hold no books of the old Testament to be canonical, which are written only in Greek: the Papists 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 precepts of faith, were delivered by the Apostles: & that the Church must not now seek for new revelations, but content herself, with the Apostolic traditions and doctrine, the Scripture. lib. 4. cap. 9 Out of the which words it doth necessarily follow, that the church is not now to found any new article of faith: but this generally is denied by the Papists: and Stapleton an English Papist, is not ashamed to say, that the Church, may add more books to the canonical Scripture, by her absolute authority. Further, to believe that the virgin Marie was without sin, yea conceived without original sin, is now amongst the Papists received for an article of faith: and therefore in Paris none are admitted to be Doctors of Divinity, which do not first confirm this article by their oath. Yet this was a great question between the Scotistes and Thomistes, and a great and hot contention arose about this controversy anno. 1476. between the Dominicke Friars, who affirmed that she was conceived in sin, and the franciscans, that held the contrary. Fox. pag. 801. But these franciscans had the upper hand, and four of the other order were condemned and burned for it at Berne: and yet for all this our adversaries will say still, that they vary not▪ in matters of faith. Thus we have seen, what is to be thought of Popish unity. Now to answer briefly to their false accusation, whereby they charge us with manifold schisms and dissensions: yea Bellarmin is not ashamed to say, that an hundred several sects are sprung amongst us. cap. 10. lib. 4. de Eccles. 1 We say with S. Paul: oportet haereses esse. 1. Cor. 11. there must be heresies and divisions in the Church. And it is a sign we have the truth, when the devil goeth about by schisms and contentions to hinder the preaching thereof. We answer to you, as Augustine did to the pagans. Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam: hostem quip, quem patimur, illi non patiuntur: Let them not boast of their concord, and cast in our teeth the dissension of Christians: the enemy assaulteth not them as he doth us: Quid ibi luchri est, quia litigant, vel damni si litigant: the devil 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 Idolatry. But amongst Christians he laboureth to hinder the truth by discord, because he can not otherwise withdraw them from the true Religion. Harken now (o ye Papists) if you consent together, it is in evil: so long it pleaseth the devil well enough: he should destroy his own kingdom in sowing dissension amongst you, for you fight for him. He useth to cast fire brands amongst good Christians, to withstand by this means the proceeding of the Gospel. 2 It is a great slander, that there are so many divisions amongst us: an hundred saith the jesuite, but he shall never prove ten. He might have bethought himself of a full hundred of sects amongst his own darlings the Monks and Friars, as M. Fox hath faithfully gathered the number. pag. 260. 3 Those few schisms and dissensions, which we have (and yet to many, we must needs confess) are not about points of faith, and articles of Religion: but concerning some things belonging to discipline and Church government: which matters we deny not, but have been somewhat to hotly and eagerly followed of some amongst us: but God be thanked, this contention hath not been pursued by fire or death, as the franciscans did persecute the poor dominics: nor yet to the pronouncing of each other heretics, as Eugenius your Pope was condemned as an heretic in the Council of Basile. The fift Note of the power of working miracles. THis they affirm both to be necessary in the Church, to have power to work error 22 miracles, for the confirmation of the faith, when there is any extraordinary change or innovation of religion, and that it is a sufficient note to describe the Church: for it cannot be, say they, but that, wheresoever this power is found, there should be the true Church. And hereupon they take occasion to extol the miracles of their Church: beginning at the Apostles time, and so in every age they take upon them to show, that their Church never wanted those that were endued with this power. Bellar. cap. 14. We answer. First, the gift of miracles doth no more prove that to be the true Church where they are wrought, than they to be holy men and elected of God, that do them: The Magicians wrought many strange things in Egypt, contending a great while with Moses: Antichrist shall come working with signs and wonders. 2. Thessaly. 2. Therefore this proveth not a Church. But here they have a double evasion: these were false miracles, wrought by the devil, as those of the Magicians, or else but forged, and only to the eye, and in outward appearance, as Antichrist is said to come with lying wonders. We reply. First, they are called lying wonders, not that they are done in show only, and have no such thing indeed, but because they are wrought to confirm lies, and discredit the truth. Secondly, your miracles are very like to be such, both wrought by the power of the devil, and some of them but juggling feats of cozeners. Thirdly, yet a wicked man may have power to work miracles, not in show, but verily and indeed, as to cast out devils, and to do it in the name and power of Christ, and yet be none of Christ's disciples. Matth. 7.22. 2 Concerning your miracles we answer, that they are either fables, and old wives tales, and no credit to be given unto them, or else they are one of those two sorts, whereof Augustine speaketh: De unitat. eccl. cap. 16. Removeantur ista vel mendacia fallacium hominum, vel portenta mendacium spirituum. Away with those miracles, which are either cozening tricks of deceitful men, or wonders of lying spirits. First, Monkish fables are not a whit dainty with our Romish Catholics, their Legends are full of them: As that of Berinus, how being in the midst of the sea, sailing into France, having forgotten somewhat at home, Fox pag. 122. went back walking upon the sea, and came to them again having not one thread of his garment wet. Many like tales are reported of Aldelmus Abbot of Malmesburie, as how he caused an infant at Rome of nine days old to speak, to clear Sergius the Pope, who was thought to be his father: how he drew along a great piece of timber, that went to the making of the Church at Malmesburie. Such good stuff also they have of john of Beverley, of Egwine Abbot of Euesham, who when he had locked his feet in fetters, and cast the key into the sea, afterward a fish brought the key again into the ship where he was sailing. Read M. Fox pag. 125. All these and a thousand more are but Monkish fables and dreams, whatsoever the jesuite maketh of them. Secondly, it is out of doubt, that some of them were well practised with the devil, and through his help could do much. We will begin with Dunstane, who caused a Rood to speak, which was more strange, then that of Balaams' ass: for the ass had life, though she had no reason, but this image had neither: Polidore Virgil thinketh little better of Dunstane for this deed doing, but that he was a sorcerer. Fox. pag. 158. It is famous in histories, how Silvester the 2. was advanced to the Papacy by the devil, and gave himself unto him, and how, having some remorse before his death, he confessed the fact before the people, and willed that his body should be drawn of wild horse when he was dead, Fox. pag. 167. and there be buried where the horse left it of their own accord. How much such diabolical practices are favoured by the sea of Rome, may appear by this one example, which we will now touch: In Pope Adrians' days, not many years ago, there was a most abominable thing practised in Rome, even under the Pope's nose, and by his permission and sufferance. The city of Rome being at that time grievously scourged and punished of God with the pestilence, there was one Demetrius a Grecian, who with the good liking of the whole city, to appease the wrath of their gods, took a wild Bull, whom with magical enchantments he made so tame, that he led him with a twine thread, Ex Paul. jovio tom. 2. lib. 21. and so sacrificed him: And this being done, the sickness somewhat slaked. Call ye this the Church of God, that suffereth such heathenish and abominable superstitions to be done in it? Or shall I take these men for Christians, that do allow the idolatrous and devilish sacrifices of the heathen? Thirdly, let us see what pretty fine juggling casts have been wrought by the Papists to deceive the people. In King Henry's days, there was a monstrous Idol called the Rood of grace, which was made so with wires and engines, that one standing within could make every part of the Idol to move, the hands, the eyes, the mouth: if a man brought but a small piece of silver, it would hang down the lip; if it were a good piece, than should his jaws go merrily: This abominable Idol by the Lord Cromwel's means was broken down, and the engines and parts thereof showed at Paul's Crosse. Such a like thing was the blood of Hales, which they made the people believe was some of Christ's blood, but in the end it was found to be but the blood of a drake, and showed likewise at Paul's Crosse. Fox. pag. 1188. At Calis in the Sepulchre, it was said, there were three hosts besprinkled with blood (as it was put in writing under Bull and Pardon:) but the place being searched at King Henry's commandment, they found three white counters soldered in the stone with the top-bone of a sheeps tail. pag. 1223. A thousand such forged devices the Papists had, which they are not ashamed to maintain for strange and holy miracles. By this that hath been showed, it is evident (I hope) to the indifferent reader, what small cause our adversaries have, to boast of their miracles. 3 Now to add somewhat concerning the miracles of our Church. First, we truly say, that our doctrine is not new nor strange, and therefore, they are not to call for miracles at our hands. The miracles of Christ and his Apostles, are also our miracles, seeing we profess the same doctrine, which was confirmed by those miracles. Secondly, yet, the Lord be thanked, we are not destitute of miracles, as Augustine saith: Modò caro caeci non aperit oculos miraculo domini, at cor caecum aperit oculos sermone domini. Now, saith he, the blind doth not receive his bodily sight by the power of Christ, but the blind heart is lightened and illuminate through the Gospel of Christ: Such miracles (the Lord be blessed) we can show: sinners are converted, afflicted consciences are comforted, the ignorant are instructed, many are called by the preaching of the Gospel. Thirdly, if this will not content them, but they still cry with open mouth, and say, where are your miracles? Behold, to stop their wide and clamorous mouth, we will show them also such miracles, as they look for, like to which they have none. Was not that a miracle, which Oecolampadius reporteth to have been done at the Martyrdom of Master Hugh Spengler: who being cast into the water and so drowned, presently all the water was coloured with blood, Ann. 1525. he having received no wound nor hurt in his body before: at the which all the people were greatly amazed? But what think you of that strange sign which George Scherrer showed at his death, who being beheaded, the body lay a pretty space upon the belly, till one might have eaten an egg, and then turned itself upon the back, & crossed the right hand over the left, and the right leg over the left: the Magistrates seeing it, having condemned his body to be burned before, being moved at the sight hereof, caused it to be buried. Fox ex Math. Illyrico. It is worth the remembering, that is reported in the French stories of Petrus Burgerius a blessed Martyr: who was cast into a filthy dungeon, where a thief had lain the space of eight months, being almost eaten up with louse, and in such misery, that he cursed his parents that bore him. This man through the teaching and the prayers of the Martyr, felt such comfort in the Gospel, that he became very patiented in his affliction: and after his conversion this strange thing was wrought upon him: that whereas before he was so full of louse, Fox ex joh. Crispin. pag. 907. that he might have plucked out twelve at once between two of his fingers, the next day he had not one. Now, because the jesuite hath such a spite at Luther (he is a great eye sore to him) we will in a word or two declare what strange things were wrought by Luther. It is credible reported of him, that a certain young man had bound himself by obligation to the devil, sealed with his blood to give him his soul, so he might have his wish and desire satisfied with money: In short time he grew to great wealth: the matter being disclosed with much ado to Luther, he calleth the congregation together, and joineth in prayer for this young man: and as they prayed, the obligation was cast in at the window. Fox. pag. 864. A notable and strange miracle, which is credibly reported of Luther. He was a man fervent in prayer: one might have seen the tears falling from his eyes as he prayed: And as he was earnest in prayer, so his prayers wanted not effect, for as he himself confessed, he had obtained of God, that so long as he lived, the Pope should not prevail in his country. And is not this also a thing to be wondered at, that for all the Pope and Emperor joined together, & bent their forces against this silly poor man; yet the Lord defended him from the lions teeth, and granted him to end his days in peace? Thus it is apparent and manifest, that the Lord showeth his miraculous power many times in his Saints, to astonish the wicked: The great miracles which have been declared in their holy martyrdoms, would fill a large volume: And by the grace of God, hereafter we may have occasion in an other treatise of purpose, more at large to publish them. But these arguments we do not chief stand upon: Yet thus much was not amiss by the way to be put in, to requite our adversaries withal, who do so greatly magnify and extol their Antichristian Church, for their lying and feigned miracles. The sixth Note of the gift of Prophesying. error 23 THis also our adversaries hold to be a perpetual mark, whereby to know the Church: for they say that the true Church of GOD wanteth not those which are endued with the spirit of prophecy: And so they bear us in hand, that in every age there hath flourished some Prophet in their Church: the first, that the Church shall always have Prophets, they would prove out of joel 2. I will power of my spirit upon all flesh. The second, that they have had such prophets, they do infer upon a few forged examples, of Saint Barnard, and S. Francis, a popish Saint, and the founder of the superstitious order of the franciscans. To the first we answer. 1. The prophecy of joel was accomplished in the Apostles time, Act. 2. as S. Peter expoundeth it, and therefore we need not look further for the fulfilling of it. 2. The Church of the jews wanted Prophets for the space of 4. hundred years and more before the coming of Christ: for we read of no Prophet after Malachy: and the Church complaineth of this want, Psalm. 74. verse. 9 that they had Prophets no more: wherefore, the Church of God after the coming of Christ, may better spare this extraordinary function of prophesying, seeing both Christ is already come, who was the very subject and matter of all the ancient prophecies: And we have also most evident prophecies of the Apostles, Rom. 11. concerning the calling of the jews, 2. Thes. 2. of Antichrist, in the Apocalypse of the general estate & condition of the Church to the end of the world: Some of which are already accomplished, some to be fulfilled in their season: In these prophecies we must rest & content ourselves, not looking for new revelations. 3. There have been Prophets amongst the heathen, out of the Church of God: they also can bring forth divers old prophecies: so that if the issue lay in this point, they might as well contend to be the Church of God. justin. lib. 1. Astyages dreamt that he saw a Vine growing out of his daughter, that covered all Asia: which came to pass in Cyrus. Augustine reporteth a prophecy of Hermes Trismegistus, De civit. dei lib. 8. cap. 26 how that all the Images and Idols of the heathen should be broken down through all Egypt. The Indians were foretold of the Spaniards coming many a year before their arrival in those places: Their Zemes, that is, their devils, which they worshipped as Gods, told them, that there should come a people with long beards, fierce and cruel, that at one stroke should strike men off by the middle: And all these things fell out afterwards to that nation accordingly. Benzo. lib. 1. cap. ●. But they will answer, that these were not true prophecies inspired of God, but uncertain predictions of the devil. What will they say then to Balaam, that prophesied of Christ? there shall come a star of jacob (saith he) Numb. 24.17, and in the same place he saith, he heard the words of God. The prophecies also of Sibyl are wonderful: which many years before the coming of Christ, prophesied of his incarnation, and of his passion, with the circumstances thereof, as how he should be crowned with thorns, that they should give him vinegar to drink, how the vail of the temple should be rend, & darkness should cover the earth for three hours: & he himself should rise the third day: yea she setteth down the very name of the Messiah, jesus Christ. Aug. count judaeos. ca 16. Tom. 6. These prophecies came not of the devil, for these mysteries, without all doubt were not known to the evil spirits: for they were not fully revealed to the Angels themselves before the coming of Christ. Eph. 3.10. Wherefore we conclude thus, that as the gift of prophesying is no sure sign that they are members of the Church & elected of God, which are endued with it: as Christ saith, Math 7.22. that many which had prophesied in his name, in the day of judgement should be refused: & Balaam is set forth as an example of a false Prophet & wicked man: Ep. jude. 11: so neither is this gift an infallible mark of the Church of God, wheresoever it is found. To the second part, concerning this miraculous gift which our adversaries pretend to have: we answer. 1. They are but fables which they bring: for if all that is reported of Saint Bernard in his life, of his miracles, and prophecies, were true, neither S. Paul nor any of the Apostles were to be compared unto him for number of miracles: such casting out of devils out of men, women and children, healing of strange diseases, foretelling of things to come: the Gospel almost hath not stranger things of our Saviour Christ. As for Saint Francis, you may guess by this, what spirit he was of, that prescribing to his followers, a certain strict order of living, as to wear no girdle, to go barefoot, and such like, he called it regulam evangelicam, the rule of the Gospel: belike making himself an other Christ, and so bringing in another Gospel: for to all Christ's Disciples Christ's Gospels is sufficient. 2. But if they have any prophecies of credit, which they can show, they are such, as are reported, of Pope Silvester the 2. who had warrant from the devil; that he should not die before he sung Mass in jerusalem: and so it came to pass, for having sung Mass in a chapel so called, he immediately died. Not much unlike to this was that of king Henry the 4. who ended his life in a chamber at Westminster called jerusalem, as he had an old prophecy. Edward the 4. also was told that his successors name should begin with G. which was the cause of George the Duke of Clarence death, his own brother: but the devilish prophecy notwithstanding took place, Fox. p. 717. for Richard Duke of Gloucester was king after him. In like manner Valence the Emperor had a blind prophecy, that one should reign after him, whose name began with Theod. which made Theodorus to rebel against him: but so it came to pass in deed, that Theodosius was Emperor after him. Such blind prophecies we deny not but the popish Church hath had many, which as you see, do cause murder, sedition, and bloodshed: but other good prophecies coming of GOD, we know them not to have any. 3. We deny not, but that there have lived some amongst them in their Church, which in those days were counted Prophets and Prophetesses, as Hildegardis, anno 1146. likewise Bridget, Catherine Sevensis: whom Bellarmine reckoneth up amongst others that wrought miracles. cap. 14. but concerning these we will answer, as the jesuite doth for Sibilla a prophetess amongst the heathen: that she prophesied as touching such matters as should fall out to the Church, for a testimony of the faith of the Christians: And so to be counted herein a prophetess of the Church rather than of the heathen. cap. 15. so we say, that if those three abovenamed were Prophetesses, they were of our Church, and not theirs: for they prophesied of the decay of their Church and raising up of ours. Hildegardis first prophesied of the beginning of Friars, and of their destruction, saying, that in the end, when their gifts and rewards ceased, they should go about their houses like hungry and mad dogs, Fox. p. 261. drawing in their necks like doves. Bridget prophesied of the Church of Rome, that it should be as a body condemned of a judge, to have the skin slain off, and the flesh to be cut in pieces: Catherine de Senis, speaketh of a reformation of the Church, & such a renovation of Pastors: that the only remembrance thereof saith she, makes my spirit to rejoice in the lord Fox. p. 842. All these things we see now accomplished: the sects of Friars in many places put down: the Popish jurisdiction cast out; a notable reformation to be wrought in the Church. Our adversaries (I think) have not to rejoice in these prophecies: neither have any great cause to challenge them for their Prophets. But I will help them a little, and bring to their remembrance a notable prophetess of theirs in king Henry the 8. days, which was one Elizabeth Barton, a Nun, commonly called, the holy maid of Kent, who being instructed by the Friars, feigned, as though she had many revelations: she prophesied, that if the king proceeded in his divorce, then in question between him and Q. Catherine, that he should not be king one year, no not one month: But (GOD be thanked) he lived almost twenty years after that, by whom many worthy things were wrought for the good of Christ's Church. This prophetess was afterward justly met withal, and worthily suffered for her demerits, with all her accomplices: amongst the which, Fisher B. of Rochester was one, Fox. p. 1055 who thereupon was imprisoned, and forfeited his goods to the King. If they will brag of their Prophets, let not the holy maid of Kent be forgotten in any wise. 4. Now lastly because they shall not outface us with a vain brag of Prophets: I will show what prophesies the Gospel hath been adorned withal. Was not john hus a Prophet, who thus said at his death: centum revolutis annis deo respondebitis: after an hundred years you shall give account of this your doing unto God? Likewise Hierome of prague, post centum annos vos omnes cito: I cite you all to make answer after an hundred years. Which prophesy of theirs took effect accordingly: for both these holy men suffered martyrdom about anno 1416. and just an hundred years after, anno 1516. the Lord raised up Luther, who indeed called the Pope and his doctrine to account. Was not Savonarola a Prophet, that said one should pass over the Alps like Cyrus, who should destroy all Italy? and is it not so come to pass? for neither Cyrus, nor whosoever else could have more laid waste the popish Italian Church then the word of God hath done, and the lively preaching of the Gospel. Walter Brute prophesied that the temporalities should be taken from the Clergy for the multitude of their sins: Fox. p. 500 this Walter lived in king Richard's days the second. Bilney that constant martyr and faithful servant of God prophesied, that many Preachers should come after him, which should preach the same faith that he had taught, and should convert many from their errors. And many such examples we have of holy martyrs and worthy Prophets: But we hereby do not prove our Church: Yet this I hope hath not been out of the way, to have answered a little to our adversaries vain and untrue brags. Hitherto, we have touched the principal notes and marks whereby the Papists do decipher out their Church unto us: Now it followeth, that we declare the right and certain signs 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 adversaries do reckon up many: the jesuite no less than 15. supplying belike in number that which they want in weight. Neither in this place do we speak of the universal Catholic invisible Church which is believed and not seen, being an article of our faith: but of particular visible Churches, which are discerned and known by these two essential marks, the true preaching of the word, and right use of the sacraments: Some also do add a third, namely, ecclesiastical discipline. Beza confess. de eccles. art: 7. Hooper upon the Creed articul: 72. But this partly is comprehended in the 2. former: for there cannot be hearing & preaching of the word, & the frequenting of the sacraments, unless there be 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 sacraments in substance be corrupted, the Church also is defaced: but if there be not an exact form of discipline, it doth not straightway cease to be a Church: Wherefore we conclude, that the true preaching of the word, and right use of the sacraments, are the only necessary and essential notes of the Church: Where these two are rightly used according to God's word, 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 use, there is no Church, as amongst the Turks, jews, and Infidels. First we will examine our adversaries arguments, and then bring forth our own. The Papists. 1. BEllarmine thus argueth: the true notes of the Church ought to be proper and particular, not common and general, as these are: for every sect of heretics do challenge to themselves the right preaching of the word, and usage of the sacraments. Ergo they are no true notes. We answer. 1. It skilleth not how many do lay claim to those notes: the word of God itself is a manifest judge, where pure doctrine is taught, and the sacraments rightly kept according to the institution. It is no matter, howsoever Papists and other heretics do make their brags, the scriptures themselves can soon decide this question. 2. I marvel they are not ashamed to object, that our notes are common, seeing theirs are most common: for not only assemblies of heretics, but even the heathen and Idolatrous Gentiles might as well prove themselves to be the Church, by those popish notes, of universality, for Idolatry had overspread the whole world; of unity, they all consented to persecute the Church of Christ; of antiquity, for the worship of Idols continued above two thousand years: of succession, for the monarch of the Assyrians endured 1300. years, their kings all this while one succeeding another. They had also Prophets, and such as wrought miracles. Our adversaries may be now ashamed to cast us in the teeth, that our notes are common, when as theirs do well agree to the Synagogues of Satan, and assemblies of Infidels. 2. Saith he, the note or the mark must be better known and more notorious, than the thing marked or notified by it: so are not these: for we know not which is the word of God, nor what books are canonical, and to be taken for scripture, but by the Church. We answer: the jesuite still beggeth that which is in question: a foul fault in a professed disputer: for have we not largely proved before 1. contr. quaest. 4. that the Church dependeth upon the authority of the scripture, and not contrariwise, and that there is no more certain and evident and undoubted thing in the whole world, upon the which a man may be bold to build and ground his faith, then upon the scriptures? This sure is a childish and ridiculous argument, to take that as granted, which is most of all in controversy. 3 The true notes (saith he) are inseparable from the Church: it is never without them. But many true Churches have wanted these: The Church of the Corinthians was a true Church, and yet they believed not the resurrection. cap. 15. The Galathians were a true Church, and yet they held that Moses law was to be observed together with the Gospel. And, the Corinthians likewise did not sincerely observe the Sacraments. 1. Corinth. 11. Ergo, they are no true signs. We answer. First, this argument may with better right be returned upon their own head: for many true Churches have wanted their marks: Christ and his Apostles had neither succession from Aaron, nor universality, and yet they made the true Church. The Church of the jews after Malachies' time had no Prophets, nor miracles, for the space of 400. years 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 certain false Apostles that laboured to seduce others. 1. Corinth. 15.34. Some of you (saith the Apostle) have not the knowledge of God: he saith, not all. So likewise amongst the Galathians, there were false teachers, that stood for the law of Moses: Galath. 5.9. a little leaven doth mar the whole lump. It was not therefore a public 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 dissolve the Church: as there was some abuse amongst the Corinthians in receiving the Sacrament: but the form and institution and substance of the Sacrament was kept. Nay, yet to grant a little more: though the error be dangerous and of great weight and moment, and such an one, as being stifely maintained would destroy the faith and Church too: yet if they have fallen into it rather of ignorance, than any other cause, and do not continue in it, but do submit themselves to be reform by the word, it ceaseth not for all that to be a Church. So the Corinthians referred themselves wholly and their opinions to the judgement and determination of the Apostle. Hitherto our adversaries have said nothing against us: now we will say somewhat for ourselves. The Protestants. 1 FOr the sufficiency of these Notes, we would desire no better arguments, than those which our adversaries alleged against us: for first our notes are proper only to the Church, and cannot be found in any place, where the Church of God is not. Secondly, they are most notorious marks, and a man by the Scriptures may more easily know, what true doctrine is, and which are the right Sacraments, than which is the true Church. Thirdly, these marks can not be absent from the Church, but do always accompany it, and it is no longer a true Church, than it hath those marks. 2 We are able out of the Scriptures to prove these marks, which may stand in stead of many reasons. john 10. my sheep hear my voice: Ephes. 5. cleansing 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 sign unto every man, whereby he may know his election. We reply again: look which way a man is known to be a member of the Church, by the same way the Church also itself is discerned: if the hearing of the word do make one a sheep of Christ, then doth it also show which is the flock and fold of Christ: As I know my hand or foot to be a part of my body, because it hath life and motion of the body: even so the body is discerned from a carcase, because it moveth and liveth. To the second place he answereth, very simply: that the Apostle there showeth not, which is the Church, but what good Christ hath wrought for his Church. We reply again: But the Church is best known by the benefits that Christ hath bestowed upon it, amongst the which the Word and the Sacraments are not the least: Ergo, by these the Church is known, and in that place by the Apostle described: And let the reader judge, 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 speak: In scriptures didicimus Christum, in scriptures didicimus ecclesiam: epistol. 166. In the scripture we do learn Christ, in the scripture let us likewise learn the Church. His argument is this: Look how Christ is known, so is his Church, but Christ is only known by his word: Ergo, so is his Church. The fourth question of the authority of the Church. THe Papists affirm, that the authority of the Church consisteth in these five points. First, in authorising the scriptures, and defining, which are Canonical. Secondly, in giving the sense of the scripture. Thirdly, in determining matters besides scripture. Fourthly, in making laws & constitutions for the Church. Fiftly, in exercising of discipline. Concerning the two last, we do not greatly stand with them. We acknowledge the Church hath authority to make decrees and constitutions, but so, as the Apostles did: Visum est nobis & spiritui sancto, It seemed good to us and the holy Ghost: the Church must be directed by the wisdom of the spirit speaking in the scriptures. We also acknowledge the wholesome 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 have already showed, that neither the Church doth give authority to the word of God, but doth take her authority from them: for the scriptures are of sufficient credit of themselves. 1. controu. quaest. 4. Neither that the sense of scripture dependeth upon the interpretation of the scripture, but that the word expoundeth itself: 1. controu. quaest. 6. There remaineth therefore only one point to be discussed of the authority of the Church: namely in deciding of matters beside the scriptures: which are of two sorts, either necessary appertaining to faith, or indifferent concerning ceremonies: of both these in their order. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE CHURCH hath authority in matters of faith beside the scriptures. The Papists. WE ought to take our faith and all necessary things of salvation at the hands error 24 of our superiors. Rhemist. Act. 10. sect. 8. In points not decided by scripture we must ask counsel of the Church. Praefat. sect. 25. The Church is the only pillar and stay to lean unto in all doubts of doctrine, without the which there can be no certainty nor security: we must therefore believe it and trust it in all things. annot. 1. Timoth. cap. 3. sect. 9 Yea it hath authority say they, to make new Articles of faith: Rhemist. 1. Timot. 3.9. as in the Council of Constance it was decreed to be necessary to salvation, to believe the Pope to be head of the Church. In the Council of Basile it was made an Article of the faith, to believe that the Council was above the Pope, and therefore Pope Eugenius in not obeying the Council was adjudged to be an heretic. 1 Upon these words in the Gospel. john. 15.27. the spirit shall testify of me, and you shall bear witness also: they conclude thus: Ergo, the testimony of the truth jointly consisteth in the holy Ghost and Prelates of the Church. Rhemist. john 15. sect. 8. We answer. The witness of the spirit, and of the Apostles, is all one witness: for the spirit first testifieth the truth to the Apostles inwardly, and the Apostles inspired by the spirit did witness it outwardly: so the Pastors of the Church witnessing with the spirit, which is not now inspired by revelation, but only found in the scriptures, are to be heard: but if the spirit testify one thing in the word, and they testify another, there we must leave them. 2 The Church erreth not: Ergo, we must hear her in all things. Rhem. 1. Timoth. 3. sect. 9 We answer. First, the Church may err, if she follow not the scriptures. Proved before. 2. controu. quaest. 2. Secondly, so long as the Church heareth Christ's voice, we are likewise to hear hers: and so long as she is preserved from error, she will not serve from Christ's precepts, neither impose any thing upon her children, without the warrant of her spouse. The Protestants. THat the Church hath no such power to ordain articles of faith, or impose matters to be believed necessary to salvation not contained, or prescribed in the holy scriptures: We prove it thus, and we are sure, that the true Church of Christ will never challenge any such prerogative. 1. All truths and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to salvation, that the ignorance thereof should bring peril of damnation: Ergo much less are any verities out of scripture of any such necessity: the first is manifest: for to know the just chronology of time or space of years, from the beginning of the world to Christ, is a verity in scripture, yet not necessary: so to believe that Marie continued a virgin ever after the birth of our Lord, was thought by Basile to be no necessary point to salvation, if we did hold her to have been a virgin afore: and many such other points there are in scriptures, which a man may be ignorant of without peril of salvation, Ergo much more may we be ignorant of unwritten verities, or rather Popish fables. 2. The Church hath no more authority than the Apostles, nor yet in all things so much: But they had no power to make articles of faith: for Saint Paul delivereth that which he had received concerning the sacrament, he durst not add unto it, as the Papists have been bold to do since, 1. Cor. 11. Ergo the Church may explain and open articles of faith out of the scriptures, but not make new. 3. We prove it by the confession of our adversaries. The fathers of Basile, that concluded, it was an article of the Christian faith to believe the superiority of the council, Fox. p. 677. did gather it out of the saying of Christ, dic ecclesiae, and therefore enforced it as an article. Whereby we gather, that they held, that the Church could establish no article of faith without scripture. Bellarmine likewise saith, that the Church is not now governed by new revelations, but we ought to be contented with those decrees, which we have received from the Apostles: Cont. de scripture. quaest. 6. c. 4 Ergo, as D. whitaker's doth strongly conclude, the Church cannot coin new articles of faith. 4. Lastly, we have before proved at large out of the word of God, that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: and therefore all articles of faith must be derived from thence. 1. controu. quaest. 7. And so we conclude with Augustine: Epistol. 49. quaest. 2. Linguae sonos, quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicent, pacto quodam societatis sibi instituere possunt: Quib. autem sacris divinitati congruerent, voluntatem dei secuti sunt, qui rectè sapuerunt: Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem justitiae pietatique hominum. Men, saith he, may devise among themselves what language they will use to express their mind: But how to serve God, wise men ever followed the will and commandment of GOD▪ which never hath failed men in all necessary matters concerning righteousness and godliness. By this father's sentence, the scriptures, which contain the will of God, contain all necessary things. Ergo, we need not seek elsewhere. AN APPENDIX OR MEMBER OF THIS part of the question, whether we are to believe in the Church. The Papists. WE ought to believe and trust the Church in all things: yea to believe in the Church. Rhemist. 1. Tim. 3. sect. 9 the scripture also useth this speech error 25 to believe in men. annot. in 10. Rom. sect. 41. 1. Exod. 14.31. they believed in God and Moses. Ergo. We answer, your own vulgar text hath it, crediderunt deo & Mosi servo eius: they believed God and his servant Moses: that is, having seen the great power of God in the destruction of the Egyptians in the red sea, according to the word of Moses, they gave credit unto Moses, which spoke unto them from God. 2. Philem. v. 5. Hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast toward the Lord jesus and unto all the saints. See, say they, here is faith toward the saints. We answer: there is no man, that is not perversely disposed, but may easily distinguish the Apostles words: to attribute faith to jesus Christ, and love to the saints: Which may appear by the altering of the preposition, as they themselves read in their own translation, love and faith in jesus Christ, and toward the saints: so it must needs be thus understood, faith in Christ, and love toward the saints: this therefore is but a sophistical cavil. The Protestants. THis word, Credo, believe, is taken three ways: for there is credere deo, to believe God, that is to trust him in all things, credere deum, to believe God to be, credere in deum, to believe in God, as our creator, Lord, and redeemer. So we do credere ecclesiam, we believe there is one holy Catholic Church: credere ecclesiae, we do also believe and give credence to the Church, following the word of God: But we do not in any wise credere in ecclesiam, believe in the Church. 1. We must not believe or put any confidence in a creature: the Church is but a creature, Ergo: for to believe in God, is only proper to the Godhead: and therefore, john 14.1. where Christ saith, ye believe in God, believe also in me: we do necessarily out of these words infer, that Christ is God, because we are commanded to believe in him. 2. Faith is of things that are absent, and not seen: but the Church is present always upon earth, and always visible, as our adversaries hold: how then can it be an object of our faith? We can not believe in that which is visible & seen, for it is against the nature of faith. 3. Augustine saith, sciendum est, quòd ecclesiam credere, non tamen in ecclesiam credere debemus, quia ecclesia non est deus sed domus dei: De tempore serm. 131. We must know, that we are to believe there is a Church, not in the Church, for the Church is not God, but only the house of God. THE SECOND part OF THE QUESTION concerning the ceremonies of the Church. The Papists. THey do hold that the Church of God may use and bless divers elements error 26 and creatures for the service of God: as holy water to drive away devils: the hallowing of salt, wax, fire, palms, ashes, oil, cream, milk, honey, Rhemist. 1. tim. 4. sect. 12. & 13. Yea that the Church may borrow rites and ceremonies of the jews: ibid. sect. 18. Yea by the creatures thus blessed, or rather conjured, they say, remission of sins is obtained, sect. 14. 2. Remission of sins was annexed to the oil wherewith the sick were anointed, james 5. Ergo, remissions of sins may be applied by the like consecrated elements, Rhemist. 1. Tim. 4. sect. 14. We answer: First, it followeth not, because the creature of oil was used in the miraculous gift of healing, which ceremony was no longer to continue, than that miraculous gift endured: it followeth not, that other elements may be used so now, there being not the like occasion, seeing all such miraculous gifts are now ceased. Secondly, it was not the oil whereby their sins were forgiven them, neither was it applied to that end, it was only a pledge unto them of their bodily health: but the prayer of faith shall save the sick, saith the Apostle, v. 15. for God hath promised to hear the faithful prayers of his children both for themselves and others. 3. Saint Paul used imposition of hands, which was a ceremony of the law used in consecrating of Priests. Ergo, it is lawful to borrow ceremonies of the jews. We answer: It followeth not, because Christ and the Apostles by the spirit of God retained some decent actions used in the law, therefore now the Church at her liberty may take of the jewish ceremonies: this is great presumption, to think it is lawful for the Church to do whatsoever Christ and his Apostles did. Fulk. 1. Tim. 4. sect. 18. The Protestants. ALthough there be great moderation to be used in the ceremonies of the Church, and there is also some limitation for them: yet hath the Church greater liberty in the rites and ceremonies, which are appointed for order and comeliness sake, then in the doctrine of faith and religion: The doctrine of salvation is always the same, and cannot be changed, and toucheth the conscience: But rites and ceremonies are external, and commanded for order sake: and neither are they universal, the same in every Church, nor perpetual, but are changed according to times, and as there is occasion. Again, the precepts of Christianity are either directly expressed, or necessarily concluded out of the scriptures: but external rites and ceremonies are not particularly declared in the word: there are only certain general rules set down, according to the which all ceremonies brought into the Church, are to be examined: as for the Sacraments of the Church, they cannot be altered, having a perpetual commandment from Christ: Therefore the Church cannot appoint, what, how many ceremonies soever she shall think good, but according to these four rules and conditions, which follow here in order. 1 All things ought to be done to the glory of God, even in civil actions, much more in things appertaining to the service of God, 1. Cor. 10.31. Our adversaries offend against this rule, applying and annexing remission of sins, to their own inventions and superstitious ceremonies, as unto penance and extreme unction, which they also make Sacraments: for this is greatly derogatory to Christ's institution, who hath only appointed the hearing of his word, and use of the Sacraments, for the begetting and increasing of faith, and by this faith only is the death of Christ applied unto us for the remission of sins. 2 All things ought to be done orderly and decently, 1. Cor. 14.40. Wherefore all ridiculous, light & unprofitable ceremonies are to be abolished: such our adversaries have many, as knocking, kneeling, creeping to the Cross, lighting candles at noon day, turning over of beads, and many fantastical gestures they have in their idolatrous Mass, as turning, returning, looking to the East, to the West: crossing, lifting, quaffing, and showing the empty cup, with many such toys. 3 All things ought to be done without offence, 1. Corinth. 10.32. But to whom, that hath but a little feeling of religion, is not the abominable sacrifice of the Mass offensive? What good conscience doth it not grieve, that the Priest should create his maker, as they say? should offer up the body of Christ in sacrifice, and be an intercessor as it were for his mediator, desiring God to accept the sacrifice of his sons body? As also to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead? But of these matters we shall have fit occasion to entreat afterward, when we come to the several controversies. 4 All things ought to be done to edifying, 1. Corinth. 14. vers. 12. But the popish ceremonies are so far from edifying, that by reason of their infinite rabble and number, they are a clog unto Christians, and more burdensome, then were the observations of the jews: They have hallowed fire, water, bread, ashes, oil, wax, flowers, branches, clay, spittle, salt, incense, balm, chalices, paxes, pixes, altars, corporals, superaltars, altar-clothes, rings, swords, and an infinite company beside: do these tend (think you) to the edification of the mind? Nay, they do clean destroy and extinguish all spiritual and internal motions, drawing the heart from the spiritual worship of God, to external beggarly and ragged relics and ceremonies. Fulk. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 1. Beza. lib. confess. de eccles. articul. 18.19.20. The fift question, whether the Church of Rome be the true Church. THis question hath two parts. First, whether the Roman Church be the Catholic Church or not. Secondly, whether the Church of Rome be a true visible Church. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE ROMAN Church be the Catholic Church. The Papists. BEllarmine defining the Church, maketh this one part of the definition, to be error 27 subject unto the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction. Lib. 3. de eccles. cap. 2. And therefore they conclude, that they are out of the Church and no better than heretics, that do not acknowledge the Pope to be their chief Pastor. Canis. de precept. eccles. cap. 9 So they make the Roman faith, and Catholic, to be all one: Rhemist. annot. in 1. Rom. sect. 5. Their reasons are none other, than we have seen before, taken from universality, antiquity, unity, unto the which we have already answered, quaest. 3. of this controversy, Not. 1, 2, 3. The Protestants. WHile the Church of Rome continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, it was a notable and famous visible Church, and a principal part and member of the universal Catholic: but now since it is degenerate and fallen away from the Apostolic faith, from being the house of God, to be a synagogue for Antichrist, we take it not to be so much as a true visible Church. But never was it to be counted the Catholic Church, as though all other Churches were parts and members of it: but itself only was a part as others, and Catholic too, while it continued in the right faith: but not Catholic as having jurisdiction over the rest, and all to receive this name of her. 1 The universal Catholic Church is so called, because it containeth the whole number of the elect and first borne of God, Heb. 12.23. Whereof many are now saints in heaven, many living in the earth, many yet unborn. But all these were not, neither are of the Roman faith: the holy men departed knew not of these superstitious and prodigious usages, which now do reign in the Church of Rome: nay, many of them never heard in their life so much, as of the name of Rome: Ergo. 2 It is called Catholic, and universal, because they that are to be saved, must belong unto this company, and be of this Church, for without the Church there is no salvation, for Christ only gave himself for his Church to sanctify it and cleanse it. Ephes. 5.25. But all that die out of the faith of the Roman Church, do not perish. Nay verily, we doubt not to say, but that all which depart this life in the communion thereof without repentance, are barred from salvation, and die out of grace. We are in the right faith: neither will we be our own judges, the scriptures shall judge us: Every spirit that confesseth, that jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. 1. john 4.2. We believe aright in both the natures and all the offices of Christ: which you do not, which do greatly deface his prophetical office, in not reverencing his word, but making it imperfect: his kingdom, in appointing him a Vicar and Vicegerent upon earth, as though he of himself were not sufficient to govern: his Priesthood, in setting up another sacrifice: Ergo, your spirit is not of God. 3 The Catholic Church is so called, because it embraceth the whole and only doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. Ephes. 2. vers. 20. But the Roman Church receiveth many things contrary to scripture, and addeth many things unto it, as it shall appear throughout this whole discourse. Ergo. 4 The Catholic Church hath the name, because it is dispersed over the whole earth. Acts 1. vers. 8. But so was never the Roman faith, which is now professed, as we have showed before. Quaest 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo, ex Amand. Polan. THE SECOND PART: THE CHURCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church. The Papists. THeir arguments are as we have heard. Quaest 3. of the notes of the Church, error 28 grounded upon their succession, miracles, gift of prophesying: answered sufficiently afore, Not. 4.5.6. We need not, nor must not for brevities sake repeat the same things often. Protestants. WE deny utterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ, but an Antichristian Church, and an assembly of heretics, and enemies to the Gospel of jesus Christ. 1 That cannot be a true Church, where the word of God is not truly preached, nor the Sacraments rightly administered according to Christ's institution: So are they not in the Pope's Church: For the word is not sincerely taught, but they have added many inventions of their own, and do preach contrary Doctrines to the Scripture: the Sacraments also they have not kept, for first they have augmented the number: they have made five more, of confirmation, orders, penance, Matrimony, extreme unction: beside, the Sacraments of Christ they have corrupted. In baptism, beside water, they use spittle, salt, oil chrism, contrary to the institution: and they lay such a necessity upon this Sacrament, that all, which die without it, say they, are damned. In the lords Supper, they have turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice, made an Idol of bread, changed the Communion into private masses, taken the cup from the lay people, and many other abominations are committed by them. Ergo, neither having the word, nor Sacraments according to the institution, they are no true Church. 2 They which are enemies to the true Church, and do 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 be of that Church, which he with all his force oppressed? de eccles. lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God, & are most cruel towards them, as their consciences bear them record. Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ, so is theirs: the Pope himself is Antichrist: for who else but he sitteth in the temple, being an enemy to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where have you a city in the world built upon seven hills but Rome? Apocalyps. 17.9. But of this matter we shall of purpose entreat afterward. Ergo. they are not a true visible Church. THE THIRD CONTROVERSY CONCERNING COUNSELS. A Council is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God, about the affairs and business of the Church: and they are of two sorts, either universal in the name of the whole Church; or particular, which are either National, when the learned of a whole Realm are called together; or Provincial, when as the Churches of one Province do assemble into one place to consult of Religion. There may be two especial occasions of Counsels: the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies; as the Apostles and elders met together, Act. 15. against those which would have imposed the jewish ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles. So the Council of Nice was celebrated the year of the Lord 327. to confound the heresy of Arrius, who denied Christ, as he was God, to be equal to his Father. In the Council of Constantinople, Anno 383. or there about, the heresy of Macedonius was condemned, which denied the holy Ghost to be God: In the Ephesine Council the first, Nestorius' heresy was overthrown, which affirmed Christ to have two persons. Anno 434. The Council of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresy of Eutiches, which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation, so confounding his humanity and divinity together. The other cause of the calling of Counsels, is, to provide & establish wholesome Laws, decrees and constitutions, for the government of the Church: so the Apostles called the brethren together, Act. 6. to take order for the poor. And in the Council of Nice an uniform order was established for the celebration of Easter, which before had much troubled the Church. The questions between us and the Papists, concerning Counsels are these, First, whether general Counsels be absolutely necessary. Secondly, by whom they ought to be called. Thirdly, of what persons they ought to consist. Fourthly, who should be the precedent of the Council. Fiftly, concerning the authority of them. Sixtly, whether they may err or not. seventhly, whether they are above the Pope. Eightly, of the conditions to be observed in general Counsels: of these in order. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING the necessity of Counsels. The assertion of the Papists. THey seem in words to affirm, that General Counsels are not absolutely error 29 necessary: for the Primitive Church was without any Council for the space of 300. years and more: yet they hold that some Counsels, either general or particular, are of necessity to be had. Bellarmine de council. lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be marveled at, that they should so much stand for Counsels, seeing they might use a far more compendious way, in referring all to the determination of the Pope, whom they boldly, but very fond affirm, that he cannot err. Although they seem not to lay a necessity upon General Counsels, yet in truth they do contrary: for they allow no Counsels at all, without the Pope's consent and authority, neither think it lawful for any Nation or Province, to make within themselves any innovation or change of Religion. So in the assembly at Zuricke. Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion, Faber took exception against that meeting, affirming that it was no convenient place, nor fit time for the discussing of such matter, but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a general Council. Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold, that what hath been decreed in a Council, cannot be dissolved but by the like Council, as if the Council of Trent were to be disannulled, it must be done by the like Synod. Bellarmine de council. lib. 3. ca 21. Which Council they affirm to have been general, & therefore another general Council must by their opinion necessarily be expected, before it can be revoked. The confession of the Protestants. WE do hold that general Counsels are an wholesome means for the repressing and reforming, both of errors in Religion, and corruption in manners: and that true general Counsels ought to be much desired, and conveniently expected: that is, such a Council, where every man frank & free may utter his mind without fear: an holy Council, where every man may go about to set up godliness, not to oppress the truth. Such a Council King Henry the eight of worthy memory in his protestation for the Church of England, for not coming to the Council of the Pope, truly affirmeth, that he desired, and craved nothing so oft of God: but because there is no hope of any such Council, seeing the Pope would be the chief doer in it, and it is too unreasonable, that the same man should be both a party, and a judge: we doubt not, but that it is lawful by the word of God, for every Prince, Duke, Lord, within his own signory, without any further delay, or expectation, by the advice and Counsel of the learned and godly of the land, according to God's Law, to reform their Church. First, because all delay in matters of the Church are dangerous, and inconveniences are at the first hand to be met withal, as we see Act. 6. and Act. 15. immediately, when any question did arise, the Apostles assembled together. In the Council of Basile, where it was decreed, that the Pope was subject to the Counsels, Panormitane a stiff champion on the Pope's side, would have the decree stayed till the return of the Prince's Ambassadors: But Arelatensis that worthy Cardinal stepped up, and showed what danger there might be in a small delay, by the example of Hannibal, who deferring his going but one day to Rome, was driven clean out of Italy, having been very like to have taken the city, if he had used the opportunity. But without all controversy, matters of faith ought not to be delayed: which could not be avoided, if a general Council should always be waited for. Secondly, a Prince hath the like authority in his dominion, as the householder hath in his house. But every man ought to reform his house, without any further delay, advisement or consultation, as josua saith, I and my house will serve the Lord, 24. vers. 15. Wherefore the Prince may and aught to perform the like in his country. Lastly, we find by experience, that the Lord hath blessed such reformations, which have been made by Princes in their own territories: as that in Zuricke anno. 1523. at Berne, 1528. and the most happy reformation of our Church of England▪ begun by King Henry the 8. increased by that most virtuous Prince King Edward the 6. and prosperously continued and established by our gracious Sovereign Queen Elizabeth. I will add the testimony of Augustine: who answering to the Pelagians, which objected that they were condemned by certain single Bishops in their own Diocese, without a Synod, he saith thus, Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat, ut aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando, nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit, etc. cont. 2. Epistol. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 12. As though, saith he, a Synod or Council were always necessary to condemn a known heresy: Nay, we find that more heresies without comparison, have been in the same places condemned, where they first sprang, without any such necessity, more so, then otherwise. THE SECOND QUESTION, BY WHOSE AVthoritie Counsels ought to be called. The Papists. THey do generally hold, that general Counsels ought only to be called and appointed by the Pope's authority, or his assignment: their goodly reason's error 30 are these. 1 Counsels ought to be congregate in the name of Christ, that is, by him that hath authority from Christ so to congregate them: see here is a goodly exposition, to assemble in the name of Christ, is to assemble by the authority of the Pope: so belike where Christ saith, wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, etc. Christ will not be present with them, unless we send up to Rome for licence, that two or three may come together. 2 General Counsels should be appointed by them, that have general authority to command men to come to the Council: but this authority over the whole Church never any Emperor had, in such ample manner, as the Pope hath: Ergo. Answer: first, it is a great untruth, that the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction which he falsely challengeth, was at any time greater than the emperors dominion: for Constantine ruled over both the West and East Churches: but the Churches of Greece were never, nor are not to this day subject to the sea of Rome. For Pope Eugenius would have dissolved the Council of Basile under this pretence, because the Greeks', which should come unto the Council for the uniting of their Church, would not pass the Alps: but this uniting never went forward, Anno. 1431. Again, if the commandment of one Emperor or Potentate be not large enough to appoint a general Council, as in these days it is not, it may be done by the consent and agreement of Princes. The Protestants. WE hold it as a fond and ridiculous assertion, that general Counsels should be ruled at the Pope's beck, but that this authority is due, and hath been of old unto Christian Princes and Magistrates, and the Pope in so doing doth but usurp upon their right. 1 That the Pope hath not absolute authority, to call, remove, dissolve, or establish Counsels, it is proved out of scripture: for Act. 6.2. the twelve Apostles, and not Peter only, whose successor the Pope doth falsely challenge to be, called the multitude together about the election of Deacons. 2 The Counsels in times past were summoned by the Emperors, which our adversaries themselves cannot deny, as the Nicene first, by Constantine the great: Constantinopolitane. 1. by Theodosius the elder. Ephesin. 1. by Theodosius the younger: Chalcedonens. by Martianus. But, say our adversaries, these Counsels were not appointed without the consent of the Bishops of Rome. I marvel they are not ashamed so to say: for when Theodosius called the Council of Chalcedon, Leo then Bishop of Rome, neither liked the time, for he would have had it deferred, nor the place, being desirous to have it in Italy: yet he was content to obey the emperors commandment, and sent his Agents to the Council, there to appear for him: Epist. 41.47.48. ad Martianum: This was alleged by Tonstal and Stokeslie two archpapists in their Epistle to Cardinal Poole. 3 It is a good reason which was alleged in the Council of Basile, that if Pope's only should call Counsels, there should be no means left to withstand a wicked and vicious Pope. Who would think (say they) that the Bishop of Rome would congregate a Council, for his own correction, or deposition? 4 The Pope hath no more authority, nor, by their leave, nothing like as Peter had: but he challenged not this dignity amongst the Apostles, to summon Counsels. We read of four only Counsels of the Apostles, say the fathers of Basile (for this also is their argument) the first was for the choosing of Mathias. Act. 1. congregate at the commandment of Christ, who enjoined them not to departed from jerusalem. The second. Act. 6. congregate by the twelve, not Peter only, 4. Counsels called by the Apostles. for the election of Deacons. The third, which was holden as touching the taking away of circumcision, and other ceremonies of the law, was gathered together by a general inspiration, Act. 15.6. The fourth, wherein certain things contained in the law are permitted, seemeth to be gathered by james. Act. 21.18. Upon these reasons the Council thus concludeth: that if the Pope would resist, and have no Council congregate, yet if the greater part of the Church do judge it necessary to have a Council, the Council may be congregate, whether the Pope will or not. Ex Aenea Syluio, Fox. pag. 676. Col. 2. 5 Augustine saith: Catholicos Episcopos & partis Donati jussu imperatoris disputando inter se contulisse. Brevicul. collation. lib. 1. cap. 1. That the Catholic Bishops and the Donatists, did meet together to dispute at the commandment of the Emperor: There were in that Council, which was at Carthage, of the Catholic Bishops 286. and of the Donatists 279. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF WHAT PERSONS the Council ought to consist. The Papists. WHereas there are four sorts of men usually present at Counsels, the Prince's error 31 and Magistrates, Bishops and inferior Ministers and Priests, and other lay people: of all these, Bishops (they say) only must have a deciding or determining voice: Priests and other learned may dispute and have a consultative voice: Princes are there to defend the Council, and see order kept: other of the Laity may be there as officers and ministers, as Scribes and Notaries: but the suffrages and voices must only be given by Bishops. Eckius. loc. de council. Bellarm. de council. lib. 1. cap. 15. Let us see some of their reasons. First, to teach and to feed is proper for the Pastors only, and to establish and decree in Council, is nothing else but to feed and teach: Ergo, Pastors only must rule in Council: which none are but Bishops: Soli Episcopi pastores sunt (saith the jesuite) neque laici neque ecclesiastici quicunque: Only Bishops are pastors, and none other of the Clergy beside, and to them only, he saith, that is to be applied, Act. 20. Take heed to yourselves, and the flock, over the which God hath made you overseers. I answer. First, what an absurd saying is this and void of sense, that the Bishop is the only pastor of his Diocese, and that every Minister is not pastor in his own parish? Nay, if the jesuite would speak truth, he shall find that popish Bishops are neither Pastors nor Doctors, for the most of them neither feed, nor teach: And they be not ashamed to profess it, Ann. 1540 or thereabout, Thomas Forret Martyr, being found fault withal by the Bishop of Dunkelden in Scotland, because he preached so oft, exhorted the Bishop again, and wished that he did preach. The Bishop answered: nay, nay, let that be, we are not ordained to preach: and in further talk the blind blockish Bishop bewrayed his own ignorance, I thank God (saith he) that I never knew what the old and new Testament was. Thereupon rose a common proverb in Scotland, you are like the Bishop of Dunkelden, that knew neither the old nor new law. Fox. Martyrol. pag. 1266. With this blind saying of the popish Bishop, our country men of Rheims also do agree, which doubt not to say, that many which have no gift to preach, yet for their wisdom and government, are not unmeet to be Pastors and Bishops. Annot. in 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 13. 2 I answer, the jesuite bewrayeth his ignorance, in making no difference between communis, and propria politia ecclesiae: the common and special policy and office of the Church: for there are proper offices and duties, some of Pastors, some of governors, some of other Ministers: but this office to be performed in general Counsels, is not proper to Pastors, but common to the whole Church: whereupon we deny, that it is Proprium pastorum munus, suffragia far in concilijs: It is not the proper duty of Pastors, to give voices and make decrees in Counsels. 3 By the jesuits argument, the fathers of Basile do conclude clean contrary out of that place, 4. Ephes. That because Christ instituted not only Apostles and Prophets, but pastors and teachers for the work of the ministery, who doubteth (say they) but that the governance also of the Church is committed unto others together with the Apostles? And hence they infer, because the work of the ministery is laid upon the rest of the Clergy, that therefore they ought not to be excluded from Counsels. Secondly, Panormitane in the Council of Basile thus reasoneth for Bishops: that they were the pillars and keys of heaven, and therefore had only deciding voices: Unto him answered at that time the wise and courageous Cardinal Arelatensis, showing Augustine's judgement upon those words (I will give thee the keys of heaven) that the judicial power was given not only to Peter, but also to the other Apostles, & to the whole Church, the Bishops, the Priests. Whereupon he inferreth, that if the Priests have a judicial power in the Church, they also ought to have a determining voice in Counsels. Thirdly, Lodovicus the Prothonotary in the same Council thus argued: Albeit (saith he) Christ chose twelve Apostles and 70. Disciples, notwithstanding in the setting forth of the Creed, only the Apostles were present, thereby giving example, that matters of faith did pertain only to the Apostles, and so consequently to Bishops. To him Arelatensis made this answer: First, it followed not, because the Apostles only are named, that they therefore only were present at the setting forth of the Creed: for we see that Princes bear the name and commendation of many actions, which are done notwithstanding by their helpers. 2. Lodovicus cannot be ignorant (saith he) that there be some articles in the Creed, which were not put to by the Apostles, but afterward by general Counsels: as that part, wherein mention is made of the holy Ghost, which the Council of Lions did add: Thus much out of the Council of Basile. The Protestants confession. Our opinion grounded upon truth and scripture is this: that, not only Bishops, but all other pastors admitted to the Council, and the learned and discreet amongst the Lay men, aught to have concluding voices in Council: and that rather the discussing and consulting of matters pertaineth to the learned Divines, the deciding to all, then contrariwise. First, that inferior pastors are to be joined with Bishops and Prelates, it was amply proved in the Council of Basile, of the which I have so often made mention, as noble Arelatensis reasoneth thus: The dignities of the fathers is not to be respected but the truth: neither will I prefer a lie of any Bishop, be he never so rich, before a verity or a truth of a poor Priest: this is his first reason, that the truth ought to be received at any man's mouth be he never so simple: and therefore Priests as well as Bishops are to be admitted to the Council. 2 He declareth the ancient practice of the Church: In the Council of Nice, where there were assembled 322. Bishops, Athanasius being then only a Priest, withstood the Arrians, and infringed their arguments: In the Synod of Chalcedon, there were present six hundred Priests, which name is common both to Bishops and Priests. When Paul Bishop of Antioch preached that Christ was a man of common nature: the Council assembled against him at Antioch, where the said Paul was condemned, neither was there any man, which did more confound the said Paul, than one Malchion Priest of Antioch, which taught Rhetoric there. Concerning the second part, that lay men also with Priests ought to be admitted: first we have testimony out of the word of God for it. Tit. 3.13. for this cause Zenas the lawyer is joined as fellow in commission with Apollo's. But we have a more evident place. Act. 15.22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church: here we see that not only the Elders but the whole multitude, were admitted into consultation with the Apostles. To this place our adversaries do thus answer: Lodovicus the Prothonotary, first thus rashly and fond gave his verdict in the Council of Basile, that there was no argument to be gathered of the Acts of the Apostles, whose examples were more to be marveled at, then to be followed: A blasphemy of a Papist. But to this Arelatensis replied, that he would stay himself most upon the Apostles doings: for what, saith he, is more comely for us to follow, than the doctrine and customs of the primitive Church? And Aeneas silvius reporteth (who writeth of the acts of that Council) that all men impugned this saying of Lodovicus, that the Apostles were not to be followed, as a blasphemy. Wherefore the jesuite hath found out another answer: he saith that none but the Apostles gave sentence, the rest only gave consent, and inward liking and approbation: this cavil Arelatensis met withal long before the jesuite was borne, in the forenamed Council. Neither this word, saith he, It seemed good, signifieth in this place consultation, but decision, and determination: And so it doth indeed: for seeing there is one word applied to them all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, placuit, it seemed good to the Apostles, Elders and the whole multitude, why should it not be taken in the one and self same sense, and after the same manner understood of them all? 2. Seeing the Council doth represent the whole Church, there ought to be present and to give sentence of all sorts and callings of men: and the tather, because the matter of faith and religion is a common cause, and as well appertaineth to laymen as to Bishops, it behoveth them also to be present: And further it were more reasonable, that princes and temporal Magistrates should bind their subjects to their laws, without their consent, than that ecclesiastical persons should lay yokes upon Christians against their wills, for civil matters are more indifferent and left to our choice, then spiritual are: Yet we see there are no laws enacted in our Realm but by the high court of Parliament, where always some are appointed for the commons, even the whole neither house, without whose consent no act can pass. So it were very reasonable, that no law should be laid upon the Church, without the general consent thereof. 3. Lastly, Augustine's judgement we heard before alleged by Arelatensis, that seeing the judicial power of the keys is committed to the whole Church, to Bishops, to Priests, they all aught to be entertained in general Counsels. THE FOURTH QUESTION, WHO ought to be the precedent and chief moderator in Counsels. The Papists. error 32 WIth one whole consent they all agree and hold, that the Pope only ought to have the chief place in Counsels, either himself in his own person, or else his Legates and deputies for him: they reason thus. 1. The Pope is the chief pastor of the universal Church, for unto Peter only it was said, pasce oves meas, feed my sheep, and he is called and saluted in Counsels by the name of father: and all other both Princes and Bishops are sheep in respect of him. We answer, first, in the jesuits argument, there is petitio principij, a foul fault in a good Logician, though it be none in a Sophister, still to beg that which is in question: for yet he hath not proved that the Pope is the universal pastor. 2. That place, feed my sheep, proveth it not: Augustine saith, redditur negationi trinae trina confessio, ne minus amori lingua seruiat, quàm timori. in johan. tract. 123. he recompenseth a threefold denial, with a threefold confession, lest that his tongue should be less serviceable to love, than it was to fear: so then, by this father's judgement, it was no privilege to Peter to be thrice admonished, but he is thereby put in mind of his thrice denial of Christ. Again, I marvel the jesuite can so soon forget himself: for in the 15. chapter afore, he proved by these words (feed my sheep) that Bishops only were pastors, and he can now turn the words to serve only for the Pope. 3. What great matter is it for the Pope to be called father, seeing he is not ignorant that all Bishops assembled in Council and other learned, are called by that name. Nay, it is no rare matter for other Bishops to be saluted by the name of Pope: as Prosper writing to Augustine, twice in one Epistle calleth him, beatissimum Papam, most blessed Pope, Tom. 7.4. Princes and Bishops to the Pope are sheep, saith the jesuite. 1. For Bishops, though he had a jurisdiction over all, which will stick in his teeth to prove, yet shall they be no more his sheep, than Priests are to Bishops, and Bishops to their metropolitans, who cannot be said to be their sheep, though they have some pre-eminence over them: for Augustine's rule must stand, nemo se nostrum episcopum episcoporum constituit. De baptism. 2.2. No man is a Bishop of Bishops, nor shepherd of shepherds. Secondly, for Princes he hath nothing to do with any but those in his own Bishopric, and as they are his sheep one way, as they are taught of him, so he and his Cardinals are the Magistrates sheep another way, and in respect of the civil government he is their shepherd: And both he and they, prince and priest are sheep-fellows, under jesus Christ the chief shepherd: as Augustine saith, tanquam vobis pastores sumus, sed sub illo pastore vobiscum oves sumus, in Psal. 126. we are shepherds to you, but both you and I are sheep under that great shepherd. The Protestants. WE do truly affirm, that the Sovereign Majesty of the Emperor and chief Magistrate, or his legate, if he either be present himself, or send, aught to be precedent of the Council: Or else in their absence, one to be chosen and elected by the Council for that function, as Cardinal Arelatensis was chosen in the Council of Basile by the fathers to be moderator. First, that it belongeth to the Prince, to have this prerogative, it is hence proved, because he is the chief judge in all matters and causes, both civil and ecclesiastical: And it appeareth by the ancient practice of the godly kings in Israel and juda. David gathered a Council together, when he brought the Ark to jerusalem. 1. Chronicl. 15.3. where he was the chief doer, and director; for he appointed the Levites their courses, and set forth a certain form of thanksgiving to be used. 1. Chronicl. 16.4.7. Hezekiah assembled a Council. 2. Chronicl. 30.2. where it was decreed, that the passover should be solemnly kept: & the posts were sent forth with the kings writ or commission. In josiah his reign there was a great assembly at jerusalem, of the Princes, the people, priests and Levites, and all from the greatest to the smallest: where the king himself was precedent and chief agent, reading the law before the people. 2. Chronicl. 34.30.31. Secondly, we find that the Emperors themselves have been present at Counsels: As in the Nicene, Constantine the great was present: in the Council of Chalcedon, Martianus: in the Constantinopolitan 3. Constantinus the Emperor: in the Constantinopl. 4. Basilius the Emperor was present. Is it to be thought that these noble Emperors, were at the Counsels as inferiors or underlings? or had they not the chief places? then sure they were precedents: for in the Council the chief place belongeth to the precedent. They might appoint a speaker or prolocutor for them, as in the parliament house, though the prince be present, yet the Lord Chancellor speaketh: but the chief power and Sovereignty in the Council, was in the Emperors. Thirdly, not to heap up many reasons in so plain a cause: I will allege one example most manifest out of Augustine: who writeth that in that great Council at Carthage where the matter was discussed between the Catholics & the Donatists, there being present more than 500 Bishops of both sides, Marcellinus was appointed to be moderator of that disputation: who divers times putteth in his sentence in the disputation, and last of all, bidding both parts to go aside, he writeth the sentence definitive, and concludeth against the Donatists, approving the acts of the Catholic Bishops. haec August. brevicul. collation. THE fift QUESTION WHETHER Counsels may err or not. The Papists. error 33 THey are not all agreed, what to determine of this matter; some affirm that General Counsels can in no wise err, although the consent of the Pope be wanting: thus the fathers in Basile concluded, who is it, say they, that will prefer a sinful man before an undefiled Church? But Bellarmine more the Pope's friend then so, holdeth, that even general Counsels may err, unless they follow the instructions and directions of the Pope: Yea that it is not sufficient for the pope to call a Council, and send his Legate thither, but he must write continually for advertisement from his master before any thing be concluded: and therefore they doubt not to say, that the Council of Basile erred, though it had the consent of the Pope's Legate, in defining, that the Council is above the Pope, because he had no such direction from the Pope, Bellarmine de council. lib. 2. cap. 11. Nay the jesuite goeth further, that particular Counsels being approved by the Pope cannot err. cap. 5. So they hold that the holy fathers of the cruel Inquisition cannot err: Yea Panormitane was not ashamed to say openly in the Council of Basile, that he would prefer the judgement of the Cardinals of Rome before all the world. This then is the jesuits opinion, that no Counsels by the pope confirmed can err: & that a particular Council having his allowance, is to be preferred before a general without. Let us see some of their reasons. 1. They abuse certain places of scripture for their purpose: as that Act. 15. It seemed good to us, and the holy Ghost: I am with you to the end of the world: He that heareth you, heareth me. Bellarmine cap. 2. Rhemist. in Act. 15.8.10. so then thus they argue, Counsels are never without the spirit of God, therefore can they not err. A silly argument, as though the spirit of God were at their commandment, or were tied to places or persons: They must first perform the condition, before they can challenge the promise: that is, to follow the rule of God's word, and obediently to submit themselves thereunto, then will God vouchsafe to be present: The Gospel saith, that wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be present even in the midst of them: Here promise is made not to thousands or hundreds, but to two or three: and therefore by this place an assembly of few persons may as well be exempted from error, as Counsels: but there is a condition, In nomine meo, in my name, and then followeth, in medio illorum, in the midst of them: if then they are not met in the Lord's name, they cannot look for the presence of Christ. I pray you where was the holy Ghost present in that Council at Rome under john. 23. when there appeared a great Owl, which stared and out faced the pope, who blushing at the matter, and fuming, rose up and departed? At the sight of which Owl they whispered one in another's ear, that the spirit appeared in the likeness of an Owl: and after that, in an other session the same Owl appeared, and could not be driven away, until by throwing bats and cudgels at her, she fell down dead before them. ex Nichol. Clemang. In the beginning of the Council of Constance after the accustomed hymn song, veni sancte spiritus, a bill was set up with these words, alijs rebus occupati nunc adesse non possumus, We are now otherwise occupied, we cannot be present with you. We see now how sure the Papists are of the holy Ghost in their popish Counsels. The Protestants. WE doubt not to say, that Counsels have erred, and may err, presuming any thing besides the warrant of God's word, and that neither universal or particular Counsels are privileged, much less any one man, no nor the Pope, not to err in matters of faith, otherwise, then following the truth of the Scriptures, for in so doing, they are sure, not to be deceived. 1. We have also examples in the scripture of Counsels that erred, as that assembly in Achabs' days of 400. Prophets, who were all deceived: the jesuite thus answereth, that it was an assembly of prophets, not of priests: as though priests were more piviledged from error, than Prophets. And these, say they, were false Prophets, not Prophets of the Lord: We grant so, and this withal, that wheresoever the Lords Prophets, and pastors, and ministers assemble, that there they will hear the Lords voice: which the Pope in his Counsels doth not. But he still supposeth, that the Pope and his ministers are Christ's Disciples: which is an unreasonable supposition, seeing we hold him to be Antichrist, and that the jesuite knoweth. Such a Council was that of the jews, john 9 where all they were excommunicate that confessed Christ, & Mark. 14▪ Christ himself was by the Council condemned: It cannot be denied, that this Council erred. Let us hear the papists goodly answers: some say, that the Council erred in a matter of fact, de facto, non de iure, not in a case of right, as whether Christ should be put to death: as though in condemning him, they denied not that he was the Messiah: other, that they erred in their own opinion, not in the sentence given, for Christ indeed was guilty of death, say they, because he did bear our sins: the jesuite findeth not much fault with this answer, & yet it is an open blasphemy, as is that also of the papists, that the jews had sinned mortally, if they had not put Christ to death. Some of them say, the Council erred not in that which was done, but in the manner of judgement, because it was tumultuous & disorderly, Popish blasphemies. & done by suborning of false witnesses: and this saith the jesuite, is probabilis responsio, a probable answer saith he, being most impious and blasphemous. But he dare not rest in this answer, but findeth out a fourth of his own, that the chief priests and Counsels of the jews could not err before the coming of Christ, but after he was come, they might. A blind popish answer▪ for doth not Christ every where impugn the traditions and decrees of the Elders, as Mark. 7. which our Saviour should not have done belike, seeing the Elders before his coming could not err: or will they say, that those traditions were right and good before, and afterward erroneous? I know not else, what they should say. 3. We see by experience that many counsels have erred: we let pass those which the jesuite himself confesseth to have erred, as the third Council of Antioch, where Athanasius was condemned, and the Arrian heresy approved: the Council of Arimine, where the same heresy was furthered: the fourth Ephesine approving Eutiches heresy: These Counsels, though they were general, the papists confess to have erred, and they have a trick to shift it off, but a silly one God knoweth. They were not approved by the Pope, say they: As though all verity & knowledge in the whole earth were locked up in the Pope's breast. But we will bring an instance of such Counsels as the Pope allowed, and yet by the papists own confession erred. In the Council of Naeo-Caesarea, confirmed by Leo 4. in the 7. canon: second marriage is forbidden. In the Council Toletan. 1. the 17. canon: it is thus written, that one may be admitted to the communion, though he have a concubine, modò non sit uxoratus, so he be not wived: the jesuits poor shift is this, that a concubine is here understood for a wife without a dowry, and further saith, that Agar was Abraham's wife, and not his concubine, against the scripture: for Abraham should have done evil in sending of her away as he did, if she were his wife, and the scripture calleth Sara by the name only of Abraham's wife, the other by the name of a bond woman, Gen. 21.8.12. In the sixth Synod confirmed by Adrian the 1. canon. 72. the marriages between Catholics and heretics are adjudged to be void. In the second Council of Nice, act. 5. it was concluded, that Angels and men's souls are bodily and circumscriptible. In the Council of Rome under Pope Stephan the 7. all the acts of Formosus his predecessor were revoked: And in the Council of Ravenna under john. 9 Pope, Formosus acts were established, and stephan's decrees abrogate. Lastly, in the Council of Constance, they are excommunicate, that receive the sacrament in both kinds: the Council of Basile on the contrary side permitteth and giveth leave to the Bohemians to use both kinds. One of these Counsels, must needs err, & both of them were confirmed by the Popes: the Council of Constance by Martin the 5. the Council of Basile by Foelix 5. By this induction of many particulars we infer and conclude, that Counsels even approved by the Pope, may and have erred, 4. Lastly, Augustine's opinion is this, that provincial Counsels ought to give place to general: Et ipsa plenaria priora posteriorib. emendari, and the former general Counsels must be amended by the latter. The Rhemists have found out this shift, that in matters indifferent, which are to be changed, according to time and place, Counsels may be altered, Act. 15. sect. 8. But to that it is answered, that the word emendare, signifieth not only a change, but a correcting of that which is amiss. And that clause of Augustine's must be put in, why Counsels must be amended: si a veritate deviatum fit, if they serve from the truth, de baptism. lib 2. cap. 3. Wherefore we conclude, that Counsels may err. THE sixth QUESTION CONCERNING THE authority of general Counsels, whether they may absolutely determine without scripture, and necessarily bind all men to the obedience of their Canons. The Papists. IN words they would seem to magnify the scripture above Counsels: for error 34 they say, that the authority of the scripture dependeth not in himself, of Church, Pope, or Counsels: but in respect of us, the word of God is the word of God, say they, though there be no determination of the Church, but we do not know it so to be, but because the Church hath so defined: Bellarmine lib. 2. de con. cap. 12. Here is a goodly gloss, but nothing to the purpose: for in that they say the Church hath absolute authority to declare and pronounce which is the word, (which indeed it hath not without testimony and warrant of the word itself) by this means it cometh about, that much is taken for the word of GOD which is not: and so the Church doth not only declare the word, but maketh that the word which is not. First, beside the Apocrypha, which they make part of the word, as we have showed afore, they hold that their traditions are also the word of God. Bellarmine cap. 12. Secondly Gratian is so bold to affirm that the decretal Epistles of the Popes are to be counted amongst the Canonical scriptures, dist. 19 can. in canonicis, & that the Canons of Counsels are of the same authority, dist. 20. can. decretales. And Greg. 1. epist. 24. saith, he doth reverence the 4. general Counsels, as the four Evangelists. Thirdly, they shamefully affirm, that whatsoever the pastors and priests do teach in the unity of the Church, is the word of God, Rhemens. 1. Thes. 2. v. 12. First then they conclude, that Counsels are not bound to determine according to the scriptures, but as judges may determine of their own authority. Secondly, that all men are bound of necessity to receive the decrees of Counsels, without any further trial or examination. They reason thus; out of the scripture. 1. Deut. 17.12. He that hearkeneth not unto the priest, that man shall die. But mark I pray you, what goeth before, v. 11. according to the law which they shall teach thee, & according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, shalt thou do: see then, here is no absolute judicial power given to the priest but according to the law of God. 2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as fond alleged, where it was decreed (saith the jesuite) that the Gentiles should not be burdened with ceremonies, which saith he, was not determined by the scriptures but by the absolute suffrages of the Apostles. Again, their decrees were absolutely imposed upon the Churches, without any further examination of the Disciples. Ergo, we are now also absolutely bound to obey all decrees of Counsels, Bellar. de council 1.18. We answer: first, it is false, that this matter was determined without scripture: for james allegeth scripture: & Peter thus reasoneth, we believe through the grace of God to be saved as well as they v. 11. therefore what need this yoke of ceremonies? 2. Though there had been no scripture, who seethe not that the spirit of God so ruled the Apostles, that their writings and holy actions should serve for scripture unto the ages following? Thirdly, the Disciples needed not to examine their decrees, knowing that they were governed by the spirit, as they themselves write: It seemed good to us and the holy Ghost: yet we see the brethren of Bereae searched the scripture for the truth of those things which the Apostles preached, Act. 17.11. When they can prove such a plenary power & fullness of the spirit in their pastors and Counsels, as was in the Apostles, we will also believe them. The Protestants. WE do firmly believe that neither the Church nor Counsels have any such absolute power to determine without the holy scriptures, either beside or against them, or to bind other men to obey such decrees: Neither that the true Church of God dare or will arrogate such power unto itself: But that Counsels are ordained for the discussing & deciding of doubtful matters, according to the scriptures, and word written. 1. If the Apostles preachings might be 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, courageous Christians, because of this their promptness, & diligence in searching out of the truth. Ergo. 2. All things necessary to salvation to be believed, are articles of our faith: but all such articles must be grounded upon the word of God, therefore nothing can be imposed as necessary to salvation without the word of God. Wherefore it is a blasphemous saying of the papists, that the Church may make new articles of faith, Rhemens. annot. in 1. Tim. 3. sect. 9 and Eckius maintained the same point against Luther, in the disputation at Lipsia, and brought forth a new article of faith, agreed of in the Council of Constance, that it is de necessitate salutis, of the necessity of salvation, Martyrol. Fox. p. 848. to believe that the Pope is the head of the Church. The fathers of Basile more modest than so, concluding that it was an article of faith to believe that Counsels were above the Pope, do use this reason: those things, say they, which we allege for the superiority of general Counsels are gathered out of the sayings of our Saviour Christ. Martyrol. Fox. p. 677. Ergo, we are all bound to obey them. Therefore we conclude, that the word of God only written is the rule of faith, and all things necessary to be believed, Rom. 10.10. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word. Counsels are to explain and declare articles of faith, not to establish new. 3 Lastly we will hear Augustine speak, Nec tu debes Ariminense, neque ego Nicaenum tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre concilium, scripturarum authoritatibus, etc. Neither must I allege the Nicen Council, nor you the Arimine, I am neither bound to the one, nor you to the other, let the matter be tried by Scripture, count Maximu. Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this father's sentence therefore, no man is bound of necessity to be tied to Counsels, but the Scripture only is absolutely to be believed. THE seventh QUESTION, WHETHER Counsels be above 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 Council of Constance and Basile, it was fully concluded: that the Council is above the Pope: Gerson of Paris, that was also present in the Council of Constance, and a great doer against john Hus, stiffly maintaineth the authority of Counsels above the Pope. Other Papists more favourable to their new God amight, say, that the Pope is by right above the Council, but he may (if he will) submit himself to the Council. But now cometh in the stout jesuite, and saith with the rest of the schoolmen, that the Pope hath such a sovereignty above the Council, that he cannot be subject to their sentence, though he would. Bellar. de council. lib. 2.14. Yet he is in a mammering with himself, for saith he, in periculo schismatis, when there is a schism, and it is not known who is the true Pope, in such a case the Council is above the Pope: Let us examine some of his best reasons. 1 Now cometh in a great blasphemy. All the names, saith the jesuite, that are given to Christ in the Scriptures, as head of the Church, are ascribed to the Pope, as he is called fidelis dispensator. Luc. 12. a faithful steward in the Lord's house, pastor gregis, john 10. the shepherd of the flock, Caput corporis ecclesiae. Ephes. 4. the head of his body 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 above the Church, and so consequently above general Counsels. Bellar. de council. lib. 2.17. O Lord what great blasphemy is here, to appropriate the titles of Christ, to a mortal man: But go to Bellarmine, and the rest of that pack, fill up the measure of iniquity of your forefathers: say with Pope Athanasius, that the people of the world are the parts of his body: with Cornelius the Bishop in the Council of Trent, the Pope being the light came into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light: with Pope Calixtus in the Council of Rheims, who, when he saw the Council would not consent to excommunicate the Emperor, impiously cried out, that they had forsaken him, as Christ was left of his Disciples: with Innocentius the third, that all things in Heaven and earth, and under the earth do bow the knee unto him: with Otho no Pope, but a Cardinal, that sitting amongst his Bishops, blasphemously applied to himself the vision of Ezechiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sour faced beasts, himself unto God that approached to the Prophet in the midst. Even thus with the like spirit of blasphemy, do the jesuits cry out, that the Pope is the chief shepherd, steward, husband, and head of the Church upon earth. But we will leave to charge them so deeply with blasphemy, which notwithstanding they cannot avoid: Let us hear, what the fathers of Basile say to this point. Bellarmine saith, the Pope is the husband: but they reason clean contrary: the Church (say they) is the spouse of Christ: the Pope, make the best of him you can, is but a Vicar: but no man doth so ordain a Vicar, that he maketh his spouse subject unto him, but that the spouse is always thought to be of more authority than the Vicar, forsomuch as she is one body with her husband, but the Vicar is not so: thus have they to the full answered the jesuite, ex Aenea Syluio. Better arguments they have none for the Pope's prerogative, than we have seen. The Protestants. THat the Pope is by right, and aught to be subject to general Counsels, and that they have authority to judge, examine, suspend, punish, & depose him, if there be just cause, it is proved thus. This matter was pithily disputed upon by the Fathers of Basile, some of whose reasons, it shall be sufficient here to follow. 1 They prove this conclusion out of Scripture. First, whereas Panormitane had said, that the Pope was Lord of the Church, unto him Segovius answered, that it was the most honourable title of the Bishop of Rome, to be called the servant of the servants of God: and Peter, saith he, forbiddeth pastors to behave themselves as Lords over the Clergy, 1. Pet. 5. And if Christ the son of God, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and serve, how then can his Vicar have any dominion? So was Panormitane answered. Again, the Divines thus argued: Christ saith to Peter, dic Ecclesiae, Peter is sent to the Church or Council: Ergo the verity doth remit the Bishop of Rome to the Council. But to this the jesuite saith, that Peter was not yet entered into his office to be chief Bishop, but was as a private person. So then belike, this rule of our Saviour Christ, dic Ecclesiae, tell it to the Church, did but bind Peter, till Christ were ascended, and he received his Vicardom. This cavillous answer the Fathers of Basile wisely foresaw, and prevented it, for they show how Peter was subject to Counsels even after the ascension, as Act. 11. Peter is rebuked (say they) by the congregation, because he went to Cornelius an heathen man, as if it had not been lawful for him to attempt any great matter without the knowledge of the congregation: but that seemeth to make more for the purpose, Galath. 2. where Paul rebuked Peter to his face, because contrary to the decree of the Council of the Apostles, he did cogere gentes judaizare, he would constrain the Gentiles to do like the jews. Ergo, Peter was subject unto the Council, ex Aenea Syluio. Other reasons many were alleged by the Fathers of Basile. First the Bishop of Burgen: As in every well ordered Kingdom, the whole realm should be of more authority than the King, so the Church ought to be of more authority than the Pope, though he were Prince thereof. The Divines brought these arguments: the Church is the mother of the faithful, and so of the Pope, if he be a faithful man: the Pope is then the Church's son, as both Anacletus and Calixtus Bishops of Rome confessed. Ergo how much the son is inferior to his mother, so much is the Church superior to the Pope. Secondly, the Pope is inferior to Angels, he is not greater than john Baptist, of whom it is said, that the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he: but the Angels do reverently accord unto the doctrine of the Church. Ephes. 3.10. Ergo the Pope is bound to do the same, who is less than the Angels. These Father's thought none so absurd to deny the Pope to be inferior to Angels, and therefore labour not to prove it. Yet Antoninus an old Papist saith, Non minor honor datur Papae, quàm Angelis, there is no less honour due to the Pope then to the Angels. Nay another saith (I think it be Pope Paschalis) Datur Episcopis, quod ne Angelis, ut Christi corpus crearent: it is granted to Bishops, which is not given to the Angels, to create the body of Christ. But the Fathers of Basile thought not these men worthy the answer, no more do we, and so let than pass. Thirdly, the Pope (say they) being the Vicar of the Church, for he is more truly so called, than the Vicar of Christ▪ he may be deposed of the Church: for a Lord may put out his Vicar at his pleasure. Ergo the Pope is under Counsels. 4 If the Counsels might not overrule the Pope, there were no remedy left to resist a wicked Pope: Shall we suffer all things, say they, to run into ruin and decay with him? for it is not like, that he would congregate a Council against himself. To this the jesuite answereth, that there is no remedy left, but to pray to God in such a case; who will either confound or convert such a Pope. Here is goodly divinity: we know that Antichrist shall at length be destroyed at the coming of Christ: but if he should be let alone in the mean while, and not be bridled, he might do much hurt, as he hath done too much already. Yet the jesuite confesseth, that a wicked Pope may be resisted by force and arms: and why not, I pray you, as well by peaceable means? these sayings are contrary. Bellarm. cap. 19 So then this is Popish divinity, that be the Pope never so wicked, do he never so much harm, he is not to be controlled of any mortal man. Such doltish school points maintained especially by begging friars, the fathers of Basile complained of: As that they should say, that no man ought to judge the high and principal seat, that it cannot be judged, either by Emperor, Clergy, King or people. Other affirm, that the Lord hath reserved to himself the depositions of the chief Bishop: Others, yet more mad, are not ashamed to affirm, that the Bishop of Rome, though he carry souls in never so great number to hell, yet is he not subject to any correction, or rebuke. For all these strange and blasphemous positions, the fathers concluded, as ye have heard, that the Pope ought to obey general Counsels. 4 Lastly, I will adjoin the judgement of Augustine, who writing in his 162. Epistle concerning the Donatists, whose cause was heard and determined by the emperors appointment at Rome before Miltiades then Bishop there, and other Bishop's assistants: and yet for all this the Donatists would not be quiet: Thus he saith, Putemus, illos judices, qui Romae iudicaverunt, non bonos judices fuisse: Restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium, etc. Put case (saith he) that the Bishop of Rome and the rest, judged corruptly: there remained yet another remedy: A general Council might have been called, where the judges and the cause might further have been tried, and examined, & their judgement, if there were cause, reversed. Whereby it appeareth, say the fathers of Basile, that not only the sentence of the Pope alone, but also the Pope with his Bishops joined with him, might be made frustrate by a Council. Here the jesuite paltreth & saith, that a matter determined by the Pope in a particular Council may be called again in question by the Pope in a general Council. First what need that, seeing that a particular Council having the Pope's authority, as the jesuite confesseth, cannot err? Again, Augustine saith, ubi cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari: In the which general Council the cause and the former judges, of the which Miltiades was one, may be tried and examined, so that the Pope himself might be adjudged by the Council, and not the cause only. Upon the Premises we truly and justly conclude, that the Pope is and of right aught to be subject to general Counsels. THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF THE Condition's and quality of general Counsels. The Papists. THeir unreasonable and unequal conditions, are these and such like, as follow. 1 That the Pope only should have authority to summon, call, prorogue, dissolve and confirm Counsels, and he only to be the judge, precedent and moderator in Counsels, or some at his appointment. 2 They will have none to give voices but Bishops, and such as are bound by oath of allegiance to the Pope. 3 That the Council is not bound to determine according to Scripture, but to follow their traditions, and former decrees of Counsels. 4 That no Council is in force without the Pope's assent, yea the Pope himself (say they) by his sole authority may abrogate and disannul the canons and decrees of Counsels. These and such other conditions the Papists require in their Counsels: So they willbe sure, that nothing shall be concluded against them. The Protestants. Our conditions, which we would have observed and kept, in general councils, are these, most just and reasonable: 1 That the Pope, which is a party, should be no judge: for it is unreasonable, that the same man should be both a party and a judge: and therefore he ought not to meddle with calling and appointing Counsels, with ruling, or moderating them, seeing it is like, he would work for his own advantage. 2 That such a time and place be appointed, as when and where the Churches of Christendom may most safely and conveniently meet together: not at such a time, as Paulus the third, called a Council, when all Princes in Christendom were occupied in great affairs: nor such a place, as he then appointed at Mantua in Italy, whither Princes could not come without peril of journey and danger of life, being penned in by the Pope's garrisons. Thus Pope, or Bishop Leo, (for then there were no Popes) writ to Martianus the Emperor, to have the Council removed from Calchis to Italy, but he prevailed not. So Pope Eugenius would have dissolved the Council at Basile, and brought it under his own nose. 3 We would have it a free Council, where every man might fully utter his mind, and that there should be a safe conduct granted to all to come and go: which the Pope for all his fair promises is unwilling to do, as it was flatly denied to Hierome of prague in the Council of Constance: to whom it was answered, that he should have safe conduct to come, but none to go. Neither if they should give a safe conduct, were they to be trusted, for it cannot be forgotten, to their perpetual infamy, that they broke the Emperor Sigismund's safe conduct granted to john hus in the Council of Constance, saying, that faith was not to be kept with Heretics. 4 That the matter should not be left wholly to Bishops and Prelates, but that the learned of the Clergy and Laity beside, should give voices, seeing the cause of religion is common, and concerneth all. But most of all, that nothing be carried with violence or popularity, against the Scriptures, but every matter determined according to the truth thereof. Such a Council we refuse not, nay we much desire, which is the true general Council: that is not general, where all men cannot speak; no freedom nor liberty granted for men to utter the truth, where all things are partially handled, and are swayed by one man's authority. Wherefore the Rhemists slander us in saying we rail upon general Counsels. annot. in Act. 15.10. and that we refuse them. 2. Galath. 2. Whether we or they are enemies to true, general, free, holy, indifferent Counsels let all men judge. THE FOURTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME, COMMONLY CALLED THE POPE. THis great and weighty controversy containeth ten several questions. 1 Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchical. 2 Whether Peter were the Prince of the Apostles, and by our Saviour Christ made head of the Church. 3 Whether Peter were at Rome, and died Bishop there. 4 Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter. 5 Concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome: six parts of the question. First, whether he have authority over other Bishops. Secondly, whether appeals are to be made to Rome. Thirdly, whether the Pope be subject to the judgement of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fiftly, what primacy he hath over other Churches. Sixtly, of his titles and names. 6 Whether the Bishop of Rome may err, and likewise whether the Church of Rome be subject to error. 7 Of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: two parts. First, whether he can make laws to bind the conscience. Secondly, whether other Bishops do receive their jurisdiction from him. 8 Of the Pope's temporal jurisdiction: two parts. First, whether he have authority above Kings and princes▪ Secondly, whether he be a temporal prince. 9 Of the prerogatives of the Pope. 10 Concerning Antichrist: nine parts. First, whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man. Secondly, of the time of his coming. Thirdly, of his name. Fourthly, of his nation and kindred. Fiftly, where his place and seat shall be. Sixtly, of his doctrine and manners. Seventhly, of his miracles. Eightly, of his kingdom and wars. Ninthly, whether the Pope be the very Antichrist: of these in their order. THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchical. error 36 WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three forms and states of government in the commonwealth: the Monarchical, when as the principal and sovereign power rested in one, as in the King, Queen or Emperor: as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings, and many years after by Emperors. Secondly, the Aristocratical, when the commonwealth was governed by an assembly and Senate of nobles, as the Romans had a long time, their Consuls and Senators. Thirdly, the Democratical, which is the popular state, when the people and multitude bore the greatest sway: as sometime in Rome also, tribuni plebis, the officers for the people had the chief authority. Now of all these in commonwealth matters, the first kind is the best and safest, the Monarchical or princely government. The question now is, whether the same form ought to be retained in Church-governement: and in this question certain things are to be observed: First, that we have not to deal in this place with that part of Ecclesiastical regiment, wherein the prince hath interest, as in ordaining Ecclesiastical Laws, and seeing to the execution thereof: but the question is only of that regiment Ecclesiastical, which is proper to the governors of the Church, which consisteth in the ministery of the word and Sacraments, in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers, in the dispensing of the keys of the Church, in the Ecclesiastical censures and discipline, and such like: whether in the Church there ought to be one chief Bishop, from whom all other receive this power in the premises. Secondly, the question is not of the spiritual government of Christ, who is the chief Monarch and King of his Church, but of the outward and external regiment upon earth. Thirdly, we speak not of the state of any particular Church, either national, provincial, or oppidal, but of the general state of the Church: whether over all Churches there ought to be one chief Bishop. These things premised, we come now to the question. The Papists. THat there ought to be one chief Monarch and high Bishop over all the Church, in all Ecclesiastical matters, for the deciding of controversies, preserving the unity of the Church, from whom all other Ecclesiastical Ministers do receive their power and authority, they thus would prove. 1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant company in Heaven: as Heb. 8.5. Moses was bid to make all things according to the pattern showed in the Mount. But in heaven there is beside God himself, a Monarch and chief commander of the Angels, even Michael the Archangel, revel. 12.7. Michael and his Angels fought. Ergo, it ought to be so upon earth. We answer. First, the Church upon earth, neither is, nor can be altogether like to the celestial congregation: for there is no temple, revel. 21.22. There shall enter no unclean thing: and many such like differences there are: We are bid to follow them in holiness and obedience, so far we must imitate the Angels, as in the Lord's prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformity in other things, we have no such commandment: we are promised hereafter to be like them, but that is not yet. Neither doth that place prove any such thing, Heb. 8. For how followeth it, Moses was showed a pattern to make the Tabernacle by, Ergo the Church hath a pattern of her government from Heaven? When they can show any such pattern revealed in the word, (for their dreams and fantasies we will not believe) for the Church, as Moses had for the Tabernacle, than they shall say somewhat. 2 It is a vain controversy so to descant of the Angels, as to appoint them a Captain and commander, and to make nine orders or bands of them, as our Rhemist. annot 1. Ephes. vers. 21. These are but their dreams, they have not a word in Scripture for it. And concerning Michael, they are much deceived, for in that place Apocal. 12.7. Christ is called Michael: Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon. And who I pray you is the chief Captain of the Church against the devil and his host but Christ? And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is salvation in Heaven, and the strength and Kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: Here he is called Christ, who before is Michael. In other places also, Michael is understood to be Christ, as Dan. 10.21. there is none that holdeth with me but Michael your Prince: here Michael is the prince of the Church, and not of the Angels. And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels, as our adversaries mean, taking Michael for an Angel, it is proved out of the 13. verse. Michael one of the chief princes: the Angels are all called princes, and not one to be prince above them. Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereunto: Tremel. for it is compounded of three hebrue particles, as much as to say, one that is equal unto GOD: which name in that sense cannot be given unto any creature. Further, Epistle jud. 9 there is mention made of Michael the Archangel, who strove against the devil, and said, the Lord rebuke thee Satan: where the Apostle alludeth, to that place of Zacher. 3.2. where the very same words are found: but there the prophet calleth him jehovah, that spoke those words, and here the Apostle calleth him Michael: so that in this place it must needs be understood for Christ. But to conclude, we deny not, but that Michael may be the name of some glorious Angel: but out of these places it cannot be proved. And again, we will not stand with them, but that there may be degrees of excellency amongst the Angels, as there shall be amongst the Saints: but that any one hath any such sovereign and commanding authority over the rest, it is a curious and presumptuous surmise. 2 The Church of the old Testament was a figure of the Church under the New: but they had a high Priest above the rest. Ergo, there ought to be now. We answer, First, we grant the high Priest was a figure, but neither of Peter nor Pope, but only of Christ: for in two things did the high Priest resemble Christ, in offering of sacrifice (so hath Christ offered up himself. Heb. 7.27.) and in entering into the sanctuary to make atonement for the people: so Christ is entered into the Heavens, to appear in sight for us before God, as the apostle saith. Heb. 9.24. I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope. 2 Neither doth it follow, because there was an high priest in one country, therefore there ought to be one over the Churches in all countries: as the jesuite frameth an other argument by a comparison: because a bishop is over his diocese, a Metropolitan over his province, there may be as well a Pope over the whole Church: For by the same reason, because a Lord may be the chief in his signory, a Duke in his province, a Prince in his Kingdom, therefore there ought to be an Emperor over all the world: or as Master Caluine saith, because one field is committed to one Husbandman to dress and to till, therefore the whole World may: which were a thing impossible. The Protestants. THat there ought not to be any one chief Bishop, Pope or prelate, to exercise jurisdiction over the whole Church, we do thus make it good. 1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ, neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Majesty over the whole Church, but only to Christ. If the Pope or any else be the head, the Church is his body, jewel ans. to the Apol. page. 657. which Bellarmine is a shamed to grant yet. Pope Athanasius doubted not to call populos mundi, parts corporis sui, the people of the World the parts of his body. Again, if he be the head, he must do the duty of an head, which is, to knit and join the parts together, and to give effectual power to every part. Ephes. 4.16. Where the Apostle alludeth to the government of man's body: in the which the parts receive a double benefit from the head, the knitting and joining together by sinews, which come from the head, and sense and motion also given to every part from the head: but it were blasphemy to think this of the Pope, that he giveth any influence to the Church. If they answer, he is but a ministerial head, Christ is the principal. We say again, that although these things are principally wrought by the principal head, yet they must be done instrumentally or Ministerially by the Ministerial head: or else it is but a rotten head: such an one as the Wolf found in a carvers shop (as you know the fable is) a goodly head, saith he, but without wit or brain. If Christ perform all the duty of the head himself, then is there no other head: if the Pope do somewhat, that belongeth to the head, tell us, what is it? If he will be an head, and do nothing, surely he must needs be a brainless and witless head. 2 It is a dangerous and impossible thing to have the charge of all Churches committed to one man: GOD alone is sufficient to bear that burden. Saint Paul saith, who is sufficient for these things? No pastor or minister, that is but set over one flock or parish, is sufficient to preach the word: much less is any one man sufficient to govern the whole Church. Bellarmine answereth first: Saint Paul saith of himself, that he had the care of all Churches. 2. Corinth. 11.28. We reply again, first, than belike Saint Paul was universal pastor and not Peter. Secondly, we must consider that the Apostles were sent to all the world: their calling was not limited: when they had planted the Gospel in one place, they did take care also for other places: but now there is no such Apostolical calling. Thirdly, Paul did not bear this burden alone, but the Apostles and Evangelists were his coadjutors and fellowhelpers. Secondly, saith he, why may not the care of the whole Church be committed to one man, as well as the government almost of the whole world was appointed by God to Nabuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Augustus; seeing the government of the Church is easier than the civil and politic regiment? We reply. First, we never read of any that had dominion over the whole world, as the Pope challengeth to have over the whole Church, which is dispersed throughout the world. Secondly, these great and large monarchs are said to have been given of God, Dan. 2.37. Not that this large dominion and usurpation over other countries so much pleased God: for the people of God the Israelites in their most flourishing estate never had such sovereignty over other countries, but by voluntary subjection, as in Solomon's days, 1. King. 4.21. the Kings round about brought presents unto him: But because the Lord turned and used this their large and mighty dominion to the good of his Church: for Cyrus was a defender of the Church, against all that bare evil will thereat: and the large Empire of the Romans served very commodiously for the propagation of the Gospel. Thirdly, the jesuite showeth his skill, when he saith, that the regiment of the Church is easier, than the government of the commonwealth: Whereas there is no greater and weightier burden upon earth, then is the charge of souls. It seemeth the Pope taketh his ease, finding the care of the Church to be so easy and pleasant a thing: in deed as he useth it, it is no great matter: for he preacheth not, but giveth himself to ease and idleness and all princely pleasures. But England hath found by experience, and so did that worthy and famous Prince King Henry the eight, that there was never matter so hardly compassed, as was the reformation of the Church, and the suppression of idolatry and superstition in this land. Augustine saith, Nemo nostrum se episcopum episcoporum constituit, aut quasi tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. de Baptis. 2.2. None of us doth count himself a Bishop over other Bishops, or taketh upon him after a commanding manner, as tyrant's use, to enforce his fellows to obey. Ergo by his judgement all Bishops are of like and equal authority. THE SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER PETER were the chief, and Prince of the Apostles, and assigned by Christ to be head of the Church. The Papists. THis our adversaries do stiffly maintain, that he was not only head of the error 37 Church, but of the Apostles also. Bellarmi. lib. 1. de pontiff. cap. 11. And the Rhemists doubt not to call him the chief and Prince of the Apostles. 1. Corinth. 9 ver. 5. 1 We will omit many of their weighty arguments, as out of these and such like places: I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not fail: cast forth thy net into the deep, I will make thee a Fisher of men: Peter paid toll for Christ and himself: Peter drew the net to the land full of great fish: Peter only drew out his sword in the defence of Christ. Ergo Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and head of the Church. ex council. Basilien Fox. pag. 673. Such other goodly arguments our Rhemists do make: Peter did excommunicate Ananias and Sapphira: he healed the sick by his shadow. Ergo he was the head of the Church. Annot. 5. Acts se. 5.8. Again, Peter's person was guarded with four quaternions of Soldiers, Act. 12.4. the Church prayed for him. Ibid. sect. 4. Paul nameth Cephas, 1. Cor. 9.5. Ergo he was chief of the Apostles. Are not here goodly arguments think you? To these reasons I need make no other answer, then that, which our learned country man doth in his Annotations. You must, saith he, bring better arguments or else children will laugh you to scorn. Fulk. Annot. Act. 5. sect. 5. Let us see therefore if they have any better arguments. 2 They take that to be a main invincible place for them, Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Ergo the Church is built upon Peter. To make this argument the more strong, they set under it diverse props: First, why did Christ give Peter this name more than to any other of the Apostles, to call him Peter, of Petra a Rock, but to show that he was appointed to be the foundation of the Church? Bellarmine cap. 17. We answer, Christ hereby signified, that Peter should be a principal pillar of his Church, as the rest of the Apostles, Ephes. 2. He changed also the names of some other Apostles, as james and john were called Boanerges, the sons of thunder, Mark. 3. Therefore this was no such pre-eminence to Peter, neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name, for he is often in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon, Mat. 16.17. & 17, 25. Fulk. Annot. in joh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly, again (saith Bellarmine) the text is aedificabo, I will build my Church: but if Christ be here taken for the rock, his Church was built already, for many believed in him. But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church, till afterward after his resurrection, and therefore he saith, I will build. We answer. First, it is a corrupt gloss, to say the Church of Christ was not builded, till after the resurrection: for seeing that many believed before in Christ, and made a Church, either they must grant, that the Church was without a foundation, or else, that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter. secondly, it is taken therefore for the enlarging and increasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not, because Christ saith, I will build, and his Church was begun to be built already, that therefore another kind of building must be excogitate: no more then, because Christ gave his spirit to the Apostles Matth. 10.1. and again john 20.22. and yet biddeth them stay at jerusalem till they should receive the holy Ghost Acts. 1.7. that therefore they should look for another holy Ghost, or as though they had not received the holy Ghost before. But as the sending of the holy Ghost is meant, for the increase and more plentiful measure thereof, so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building. Tract vlt in johann. We yet further answer with Augustine: super hanc petram, quam confessus es, aedificabo ecclesiam: upon this rock, which thou hast confessed, will I build my Church: so that in this place is meant not Peter to be the rock, but either Christ, whom he confessed, or his saith: whereby he confessed him, which cometh all to one effect. There is no great difference, whether we say, the Church is builded upon Christ, or faith is the foundation of the Church, for faith is an apprehension of Christ: but of the person of Peter it can no more be understood then of the rest of the Apostles, who in some sense are called the foundation of the Church, namely in respect of their holy Apostolic doctrine upon the which the Church is built. Ephes. 2.20. Bellarmine and the jesuits deny not, but here is relation also to the faith of Peter, but faith considered in his person. We answer: if they mean Peter's particular faith, which was a proper adjunct to himself, the universal Church cannot be built upon that faith, seeing when Peter died, his faith also, as a proper accident to his person, ceased: if they understand that general faith, whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession: then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church, as he, because it was their general confession. Fulk. annot. in 16. Matth. sect. 8. 3 Another place, which our adversaries mightily urge, are those words which follow verse 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, whatsoever thou shalt bind in earth, shallbe bound in Heaven: Ergo: Peter had especial jurisdiction given him more than any of the rest. Bellarmine cap. 12. We answer. First, as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest, so this power is given him not only for the rest (as the Rhemists falsely charge us, that we make Peter a proctor for others) but together with the rest: Peter's person must be excluded: for immediately after he deserved for a certain slip of his person to be called Satan: it were an unfit match, the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ, and to sustain so great a rebuke as to be called Satan. secondly, here is no more promised to Peter then unto all the rest of the Apostles: Matth. 18.18. They likewise have authority given them to bind and lose, and it is performed to them all alike. john 20.23. 2 By the keys here cannot be understood that large jurisdiction which the Papists dream of, as not only the authority and chair of doctrine, judgement, knowledge, discretion between true and false doctrine, all which we grant together with Peter to have been given to all the Apostles beside. But say they, hereby is signified the height of government, the power of making laws, of calling Counsels and confirming them, of ordaining Bishops and Pastors, finally to dispense the goods of the Church spiritual and temporal: all this is added without ground, neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authority, no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hundred years after Christ. For this plenary power of the keys, when they signify, a sovereign and chief, and surpassing power, are so only given unto Christ, and to no mortal creature: He is said to have the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth, and no man openeth. Apocalip. 3.7. Fulk. Annot. 16. Matth. sect. 13. Lastly, I will oppose the judgement of the Fathers of the Church, who allege out of Augustine, that Peter received the keys for the whole Church, and out of Ambrose, that when Christ said to Peter, pasce oves, the blessed Apostle took not charge of them alone, saith he, but together with us, and we together with him. Fax. pag. 675. 4 Other arguments they allege for the primacy and pre-eminence of Peter, as Matthew 10. He is named in the first place. Bellarmine cap. 18. We answer, this mought be, because Peter was the most ancient in years, or one of the first that was called. But howsoever it was, it is no great matter: for this order is not alway kept, as Galath. 2. Paul nameth james first; james, Cephas, john, saith he, verse 9 the jesuits best shift is here to deny the text, saying; it should be read, Cephas, james john: unless james be named first, because he was Bishop of jerusalem: Mark I pray you, Ergo at jerusalem Peter was not before james, but next unto him, therefore not prince of the Apostles. Bellarm. cap. 18. Again, say they, Peter standeth up in the election of Mathias. Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon, Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first. We answer to the first: We deny not a primacy of order to have been in Peter: but it followeth not, that he which speaketh first, or giveth the first voice, should be the head and commander of the rest to the second: we also grant that Peter in zeal, promptness and forwardness, was not behind any of the Apostles, but even with the first: for in him was that saying of Christ verified upon the woman. She loved much, because much was forgiven her, Luk 7: So was it with Peter, to whom Christ forgave much, and therefore he loved much. To the third we answer, that by the jesuits own confession, james, who was (as they say) Bishop of jerusalem, had the primacy there: how then can they now give it to Peter? The Protestants. THat Peter had no such jurisdiction over the Apostles, as to be called the head and Prince of them: but that to them all indifferently were the keys committed, and did all faithfully execute their Apostleship without any subjection of each to other, but joined the right hands of fellowship together: we thus confirm it out of the holy Scripture, and necessary arguments derived out of the same. 1 Ephes. 2.20. apocalypse. 21.14. The Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Ergo no primacy of power amongst the Apostles, they all founded the Church. Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine, there was no difference between Peter and the rest, Bellarm. cap. 11. for they all were first planters of Churches, they all preached the Gospel by revelation: But in respect of government, they were not equal: they had chief authority committed to them as Apostles and Ambassadors of Christ: But Peter, as ordinary pastor. We answer. First, by his own confession the Apostles had chief authority as Apostles, but there was no higher authority or power then of the Apostleship: but as they were Apostles they were equal (saith the jesuite:) Ergo there could be no superiority, for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church. 2 To preach the Gospel, and to have jurisdiction of government, do both belong to the power of the keys: but the keys were equally committed to all: Ergo they had all equal power both to preach and to govern. That they all had the power of the keys equally granted unto them, we have proved before out of Matth. 18.18. 2 Bellarmine himself confesseth, that james was Bishop and ordinary pastor at jerusalem, and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas, that therefore he is named first by Saint Paul, Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19 Therefore at jerusalem Peter was to give primacy to the ordinary pastor there. If they answer, that Rome was then the chief city, and therefore Peter being Bishop of Rome was to have the pre-eminence: To this we reply: that jerusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place, which was chosen by the Lord himself, to be the chief city of his Church: But Rome through the tyranny and usurpation of the Romans over other countries was advanced to that dignity, not by the election of God. But Bellarmine answereth, that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church, and so of jerusalem too. We answer, he now saith less for Peter, then if he called him, as he was, the Apostle of the whole world: for it was more to be an Apostle than a Bishop. divers were called in the Apostles times, episcopi, overseers, or Bishops, that were not Apostles, as the pastors of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. Wherefore now he hath said just nothing: in seeking to advance Peter, he hath disgraced him, in pulling him down from his high Apostleship, to the chair of a Bishop. 3 Peter had no superiority over Paul, for they joined right hands of fellowship: and this allotment was made between them, that Paul should be the chief of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision, Galath. 2.9. Ergo. Bellarmine answereth. First, they were joined as fellow-labourers in the preaching of the Gospel: but Peter might for all this be greater in the office and power of governing. We answer: yea, but the text saith, that Paul only was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles, but he had the chief Apostleship. Now to the Apostleship belongeth, not only the function of preaching, but the whole use of the keys, and power of jurisdiction. Ergo: in all respects Saint Paul over the Gentiles had the chief Apostleship. But let any man say, that this was a human compact amongst themselves, and Paul had his lot at Peter's assignment: the text showeth, that the Lord himself had made this distribution. For when they saw, saith Saint Paul, that the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed to me, verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirm by their consent, that distribution, which they saw the Lord himself had appointed. Further saith the jesuite, the division was not so made, but that it was lawful for Peter also to preach to the Gentiles. We answer: we grant it, and for Paul to preach to the jews, yet that distinction remained still, that Peter was chief of the circumcision, Paul of the uncircumcision. Again saith he: but Peter had the more excellent lot, for Christ himself first preached to the jews. We answer, we deny not, but that he had the first lot in order: for to the jews was the Gospel first offered: but Paul had the larger and more glorious lot: the Church of the jews, now decaying, and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their room. But howsoever it was, it cannot be denied, but that Paul was chief towards the Gentiles: And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right have derived their authority from S. Paul, then from Peter: Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See: seeing by their own rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both. Further, out of the same place, Galath. 2.11. an other thing cometh to be observed: that Peter was rebuked of Paul, and in such sort, that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them▪ for he doth it to his face openly, before all men, and at Antioch, in Peter's own Bishopric, as they say, can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter? Cap. 15. Bellarmine and the jesuits answer, that the Pope may be rebuked of an inferior, and aught to take it patiently, if it be done in zeal and love. Answer: First, we do not simply thus conclude, because Paul reprehended Peter, therefore he was not his superior, but because of the manner, as we showed: it was done in such sort, so plainly, so openly, without any submission or craving of pardon, that there can appear no inequality at all between them. Secondly, although they seem here to grant, that the Pope may be rebuked, yet is it otherwise in their Canon law, which saith, that though the Pope do lead innumerable souls to hell, no mortal man may presume to reprove his faults, part. 1. distin. 4. cap. Si Papa. Fulk. Annot. in Gala. 2. sect. 8. 4 lastly, what reason was there, why Christ should give the supremacy to Peter over the rest? Christ was no acceptor of persons: if he had been, john should have been preferred, whom he loved most. If deserts be weighed, I think Peter deserved no more than the rest of his fellows: Nay I think the wisdom 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 than any of the rest, should be evidently set forth in Scripture. We will briefly run them over, not to derogate from the blessed memory of so excellent an Apostle; but a little to stay and bridle the preposterous zeal of our adversaries, who do ascribe more unto him, than ever he would have challenged to himself. To let pass the smaller slips and escapes of this Apostle, as his rashness in adventuring beyond his strength, to walk upon the Sea, Matth. 14. secondly, his unadvised speech in the Mountain, Math. 17. let us make three Tabernacles: thirdly, his ignorance, Matth. 19 In saying to Christ, how often shall I forgive my brother? till seven times? fourthly, his impatiency, as in drawing out his sword and cutting off Malchus ear. fifthly, his timorousness in flying from Christ at his apprehension. sixtly, his curiosity, john 21. In ask concerning john, what shall this man do? To let pass these as common infirmities: There are four great faults, which Peter fell into, much amplified, and stood upon by the fathers. 1 He de●orted our Saviour from his passion with these words: Master favour thyself, Math. 16. and was therefore called Satan, an adversary to the death of Christ, and so to the redemption of man. Augustine chargeth him with great forgetfulness, having made so notable a confession of Christ before, and noteth him for some sparks of distrust and infidelity. Ille Petrus, qui iam eum confessus fuerat filium dei, timuit, ne sicut filius hominis moreretur, in Psal. 138. The same Peter (saith he) which a little before had confessed him to be the Son of God, feared lest he should die and perish as a man. 2 In promising rashly not to deny Christ, yea unto 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 denier. 3 The third great sin was committed by Peter in denying of Christ, and that thrice, yea with an oath, at the instance of a maiden, and in a very short while, before the cock crew twice, Mark. 14.72. The jesuite answereth, that this was no hindrance to Peter's primacy, but a furtherance and a confirmation of it. But whether it were a let to his primacy or not, let all men judge, seeing it had been sufficient to have hindered his salvation and destroyed his faith, without the great mercy of God. Let us hear Augustine's judgement of Peter's fall. Some man may excuse Peter, and say, that he did nothing, but as Christ forewarned him. What then (saith he) if Peter therefore did not amiss, because his fall was foretold by Christ: Rectè etiam fecit judas, qui tradidit dominum, quia & hoc praedixerat dominus: Exposit. in Psal. 140. then judas did well too (saith he) in betraying of Christ, for this also Christ showed afore? But some again may say: he denied not Christ, for he said he knew not the man: Quasi vero (saith he) qui hominem Christum negat, Tractat. in johann. 66. non Christum neget: as though he that denieth the man Christ, doth not flatly deny Christ. Christ also taketh away all doubts (saith he) when he thus said to Peter, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice: he saith not, till thou hast denied the man, but me. Again, Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos: Peter himself doth confute his maintainers and defenders: Agnovit planè peccatum suum infirmitas Petri: Peter own conscience gave him, that he had sinned, for he went out and wept bitterly. But if by this means his primacy was confirmed, he had occasion to rejoice, and not to weep: Yea he wept bitterly, his sin was very great: how then dare one of your sect say with a blasphemous mouth, Petrus non fidem Christi, sed Christum salva fide negavit: Copus. vide jewel. p. 665 defence. apol. Peter denied not the faith of Christ, but his faith remaining safe and sound he denied Christ? The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peter's fall, no nor Peter himself, that wept full sore, as these men presume to do. 4 The last fault noted in Peter was that, for the which he is reproved of Paul Act. 2. Tush (saith Bellarmine) it was a very small and light offence. Yea, was it so small a fault to constrain the Gentiles to do like the jews? for this was the point, as S. Paul writeth, Galath. 2.14. And Augustine saith, Petrus non obiurgatus a Paulo fuit, quòd seruabat consuetudinem judaeorum, in qua natus & educatus fuit, sed quòd eam gentibus imponere volebat. Exposit. ad Galat. Peter was not rebuked of Paul, because he kept the custom of the jews, wherein he was brought up, but because he would lay it upon the Gentiles. Was this levissimum peccatum, a small transgression? S. Paul should greatly have been to blame, for rebuking Peter openly, and so plainly for so small an offence, and should have done against his own rule, Galath. 6.1. But Peter did it of a good mind (saith Bellarmine. Bellarm. cap. 28. ) Yea did? then he was worthy to be excused, not worthy of blame, as S. Paul writeth. He might also do it ignorantly and unwittingly (saith he.) How can that be? seeing he was one that made the decree, Act. 15: That no yoke should be laid upon the Gentiles: other than there expressed, and now contrary to that decree, he constraineth the Gentiles, judaizare, to play the jews. These things do not hang together. I will now conclude out of Augustine, as he allegeth out of Cyprian: Nec Petrus, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, ut diceret se primatum tenere, De baptis. 2.2. Howsoever it was, Peter, when Paul reasoned thus with him, did not stand upon his pantofles, & challenge any primacy to himself. But it is very like, if there had been any such primacy in Peter of power and jurisdiction, (a primacy of order we grant, as Cyprian in that place calleth Peter, primum, the first) that this sharp reprehension of Paul should either have been spared, or else not done in that vehement manner. THE THIRD QUESTION, 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 OUR adversaries would seem to prove 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 pontiff. Rhemens. argum. in 1. Epist. Petri. We answer: First, it is a silly argument for them hereby to prove Peter's being at Rome: for thus much they have gained by it, that Rome is Babylon, and so the seat of Antichrist, Revel. 18. Secondly, there were two Babylon's, one in Syria, the other in Egypt, from either of which S. Peter might dare his epistle and it is most like that he would keep the common and known name of the place, that it might be out of doubt what Church he meant: as for the name of Babylon, to be ascribed to Rome, though it were so mystically, yet was it not so called: for why might not Paul as well have written his Epistle to the Romans under that name, the Church of Babylon, as Peter wrote from thence? 2 Again, they allege that story, how Peter overcame Simon Magus at Rome, when he would have taken his flight into the air, having made himself wings, and by the prayer of Peter was brought down again and broke his legs, and so died: whereupon Nero being offended with Peter, would have apprehended him: who being counseled by the Church, would have fled from Rome: but meeting Christ at one of the gates, and saying unto him, whether goest thou Lord? And he answered, I come again to be crucified: Peter upon those words returned back again, and was crucified for the testimony of jesus. Bellarm. cap. 2.3. We answer: First, we deny not that Peter was at Rome, but show only the insufficiency of their arguments: and again, we move such doubts, as by them are yet unanswered, as afterward shall be showed. Secondly, concerning this story of the victory over Simon Magus, they that doubt of Peter's being at Rome, may also doubt of this, neither of them being necessary to be believed as articles of faith, but probable and conjectural, as matters of story. For some part of the story is denied by Augustine, as how Peter fasted upon the Saturday, Epistol. 86. the combat between him and Simon Magus, following upon the Lord's day after, and thereupon rose the custom of the Saturday fast among the Romans: Est quidem (saith he) haec opinio plurimorum, quamuis eam perhibeant esse falsam plerique Romani. This is (saith he) a probable opinion of many, (concerning Peter's fast) yet the Romans themselves think it to be false. 3 That concerning Christ's apparition to Peter, seemeth to be most unlike of all: and savoureth somewhat of the Popish Legends. Like unto this are the tales of S. Christopher, how he carried Christ, and how S. Gregory had him for one of his guests at his table of hospitality: such visions and apparitions of Christ are contrary to the scriptures, which say, that the heavens must contain him till his coming again. Bellarmine answereth: first, by this means, we do compedes Christo inijcere, we fetter Christ in heaven. We answer, belike then heaven is a prison, with the jesuite: God send all that are his such a prison at the length. Again, Christ is no otherwise concluded and shut up in heaven, then as it pleaseth himself, and as he hath appointed so to be. 2 He objecteth: that Christ appeared near unto the earth to Paul. We answer: First, there is no such thing proved out of the text, but rather the contrary, that the voice was heard from heaven; not near the earth, but above, Act. 22.6. Secondly, Paul heard a voice only, he saw no man, neither he nor the company with him, Act. 9.7, 8. But only a great light they saw shining from heaven, Act. 22.6, 9 Therefore out of this place they cannot prove any such real apparition of Christ. 3 Peter died at Rome, his sepulchre is to be seen there to this day: Ergo, he was at Rome. Bellarm. cap. 3. We answer: First, it followeth not, if Peter were buried at Rome, that therefore he died there: for the translation of the bones and bodies of Martyrs is no unusual thing in your Church: As it followeth not, because john Baptists head, as you say, is to be seen at S. Siluesters at Rome, that therefore he died there; so neither doth it follow of S. Peter. 2 Again, how shall we believe you, that it is S. Peter's Sepulchre, which is showed at Rome; seeing you have made so many mockeries already, making the world believe, that Peter's body is sometime in one place, sometime in an other? Half his body (you say) is at S. Peter's in Rome, half at S. Paul's, his head at S. john Laterane, his neither jaw with the beard at Poicters in France, many of his bones at Trieirs, at Geneva part of his brain. You see that we may as well doubt whether Peter's body be at Rome, as in any of these places. And such as you see, are our adversaries arguments for Peter's being at Rome. The Protestants. COncerning Peter being at Rome: First, we do not utterly deny it, but only affirm that he could not come thither so soon as in the second year of Claudius, and sit there so long, namely, five and twenty years, as they hold. Secondly, it may be granted, that he was there, as a matter of story, not an article of faith. Thirdly, we have certain doubts and arguments, about some circumstances of his being there, which our adversaries are not able to answer. 1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers, concerning the time of Peter's coming to Rome: Orosius saith he came thither in the beginning of Claudius' reign: Hierome saith, the 2. year of his reign: other say, the fourth year: other, the thirteenth year: Damasus would have him come thither in Nero his reign. This dissension of writers showeth that the matter may be justly doubted of, Fulk. in Rom. 16. sect. 4. Bellarmine and the jesuits answer: No more do all agree concerning the time when the world was created, nor for the story of Christ's life, in what time every thing was done when he suffered, and such like: yet it followeth not, that those things were not true, because there is some diversity about the time, Rhemist. 1. Pet. 5.13. We reply: First, most of these things concerning the chronology of scripture, though it be not necessary to salvation, yet by diligent search may be found in scripture. Secondly, if they can show any scripture for Peter's being at Rome, as we have for the other stories, we will believe it, though the time perfectly be not known: but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there, and the time is uncertain, we may worthily doubt of it, much less are bound necessarily to believe it. 2 The story of Peter's coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, his abiding at Rome five & twenty years, his death and martyrdom in the 14. year of Nero, and the 37. year after Christ's ascension: we prove out of the scriptures to be false. For Peter was at jerusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. years after Christ: for Paul saw him there 3. years after his calling, and again 14. years after that, Galath. 2. there is 17. years, and one year was passed before Paul's conversion: in all 18. years: add unto these the 25. years of Peter's being at Rome, that maketh 43. years: and so Peter should suffer in Vespasianus reign, and not in the time of Nero. Bellarmine and the jesuits answer: that Peter was at Rome seven years before the Council held at jerusalem, Act. 15. which was in the 18. year after Christ: and that being expelled the city by Claudius with the rest of the jews, he returned to jerusalem, and there spoke with Paul, and after that went to Rome again and there ended his life. This answer we show to be very insufficient. First, Act. 15.2. it appeareth that there was, as it were, a standing and set council of the Apostles at jerusalem, of the which Peter was one: for the Church thought good to send up to the Apostles and Elders which were at jerusalem. Secondly, till the 18. year when this Council was held, it seemeth that Peter had laboured only or especially amongst the jews, of whom there were then but few at Rome: for, saith the Apostle, he that was mighty in Peter in the Apostleship over the circumcision, was also mighty in me, Gal. 2.8. Therefore Peter was not known to have laboured until this time in the circumcision. Thirdly, afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome: for after this, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2. Fourthly, these are but bare conjectures of our adversaries, and crafty evasion without scripture: but seeing we appose them out of scripture, it is great reason, they should likewise answer us out of scripture. 3 We have divers other objections also out of the scriptures: as first, that if Peter were at Rome, it is not like that Paul would leave him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle, Rom. 16. sent to the brethren. Our adversaries answer but very simply, that at that time, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle, either Peter was not at Rome, or else Paul might write some especial letters to him by himself, and this Epistle enclosed in them: such goodly conjectures they have. But I pray you what needed S. Paul to have written unto the Romans, if S. Peter so faithful and vigilant a Pastor, were continually amongst them? Other places also of scripture we have: as Philipp. 2.20. speaking of Timothy he saith, I have none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11. These only are my workfellows, 2. Timoth. 4.11. only Luke is with me: Ergo, Peter all this while was not at Rome, for Paul would not have left him out of the number of his fellow-helpers: at the lest he would not have commended Timothy, though he were a worthy young man, before him. That which Bellarmine answereth, is just nothing: that S. Paul speaketh in those places only of his domestical helpers, which did minister unto him: When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellow labourers: these only are my workfellows to the kingdom of God, Coloss. 4.11. another argument doth arise out of S. Paul's words, 2. Timoth. 4.16. At my first answering no man assisted me: Ergo, it is like that Peter was not then at Rome, for he would not have forsaken Paul. Bellarmine answereth: that he speaketh only of such favourers as he had in Caesar's court, that they would not make suit for him to the Emperor. But this is a weak solution. First, it appeareth by that which followeth, that they left him without help in his open Apology or defence: they did not assist me (saith he) but the Lord assisted me: that is, gave me strength to defend my cause: so that the word, assisting, must be taken in the same sense before, that they failed him in that, wherein God assisted him, that is, in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth. Secondly, it is proved by the divers success that he had at his first and second answering: at the first all left him, but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds: what to do? more frankly to speak the word, Philipp. 1.14. Ergo, at the first they forsook him, because they were afraid to speak the word. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome. error 39 Our adversaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome, there enthronised, and sat in the Bishoplike chair many years, and after left it to his successors. 1 The Roman faith was first planted by Peter, for he first preached to the Gentiles, Act. 15.7. Ergo, he was the first Bishop. Answer: First, that Peter first preached to the Gentiles, it is contrary to the story of the Acts: for Paul was converted before Peter saw the vision from heaven, Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question, whether it were lawful to preach to the Gentiles. But Paul immediately after his conversion preached to the Gentiles, Galath. 2. therefore before Peter. Neither is there any thing to the contrary, Act. 15.7. the Gentiles believed by S. Peter's mouth, as he saith, but not first. Secondly, that Peter first preached not at Rome, it is thus gathered: because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread far abroad, could be kept from Rome the space of 12. years, for so long it was by their account, before Peter came to Rome. Again, there were divers that dwelled at Rome, which heard the Apostles speak divers tongues, Act. 2. being strangers then and sojourners at jerusalem: and Rom. 16.7. he maketh mention of Andronicus and junia, which were in Christ before him: By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome. Thirdly, it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter: for when he came to Rome, he called the jews together, who said unto him, that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of judea, Act. 28.22. But if Peter had been there, Paul no doubt should have been known at the least by name: The jews also say unto him, we will hear of thee what thou thinkest: and some of them were persuaded by Paul, some believed not. It seemeth by this place that the jews in Rome had not heard of the Gospel before. But if Peter had been amongst them, who had an especial charge of the circumcision, he would have had the greatest care of the jews to win them to Christ. Fourthly, though Peter had first preached to the Romans, it would not follow, that therefore he was Bishop there: for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus, yet they say john was first Bishop there: wherefore they should gain nothing by this argument, if it were true, but that Peter was the first preacher, and converter of the Romans to the faith. The Protestants. IF we take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the public cure and charge of souls: in that sense we deny not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi, Bishops, as Christ is called the shepherd and Bishop of our souls, 1. Pet. 2.23. But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place, which is called Episcopus intitulatus, a Bishop entitled, we deny that either Peter or Paul were Bishops, Fox. pag. 15. 1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision; therefore it is more like that Paul was chief Pastor of the Romans, because they were of the Gentiles, and part of his charge: and unless they can prove that Paul resigned over his lot unto Peter, that he also should be the chief Apostle of the Gentiles, as he was of the jews; Peter should have intruded himself into Paul's charge, not in preaching to the Gentiles, (for both Paul might preach to the jews, and Peter to the Gentiles) but in taking upon him to be the chief Apostle of the Gentiles, which was given before to S. Paul. 2 The Rhemists themselves grant, 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, showed in a letter of his to Cardinal Poole, how in times past, both Peter and Paul▪ were counted patrons of the Church of Rome, and principes apostolorum, the chief of the Apostles. Eusebius saith, 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 pre-eminence of authority from Peter, they may do 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 divers offices, Eph. 4.11. he gave some to be Apostles, some to be Pastors & Doctors: Ergo, they were divers offices, and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops, for both are all one. The offices were much different: Apostles were immediately called of God, Bishops and Pastors were ordained by the Apostles, the Apostles calling was general over the whole world, the Pastors were obliged to their diocese & parishes & particular Churches: the office of the Apostles was extraordinary, & but for a time; the calling of Pastors was to endure ever in the Church. Wherefore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certain places. Irenaeus saith, that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officium episcopatus iniungunt: the Church of Rome once founded, the holy Apostles laid the charge of the Bishopric upon Linus. Whereby it appeareth, that they only retained their Apostleship enjoined them of Christ, Tunstal. ex Fox. pag. 1066. It had therefore been contrary to the commandment of Christ: who said, Ite in universum mundum, go into all the world: if they should have left their calling, and bound themselves to any peculiar Church: Ergo, we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome. THE FOURTH QUESTION, WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter. The Papists. error 40 THey do generally hold, that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter, they have the same primacy, apostolic authority & jurisdiction over 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 maintain and uphold this succession by, and in the end the jesuite runneth to tradition: and at the length he thus concludeth; that it is not, de iure divino, it is not necessary by the law of God, that the Roman Bishop should be Peter's successor: but it dependeth only upon the ordinance of Peter, Bellarm. cap. 12. and is proved by tradition, not deduced out of scripture. That it was necessary for Peter to have a successor, they say, it is proved out of scripture: which we also grant, that all faithful Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors, though they have not their plenary and Apostolic power: but that the Pope ought to be and is his successor, it standeth upon tradition. We see then the grounds of their opinion: scripture they have none but blind tradition: unless therefore they could bring better stuff for the Papal succession, we will not spend any time in confuting nothing. The Protestants. THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can, is, or aught to be S. Peter's successor, in his high and Apostolic authority, primacy, and jurisdiction over the whole Church, which Peter himself never had: thus we declare it. 1 The Pope, though he were Peter's successor, yet can he not receive that from him, which he never had: but Peter had never any such primacy of power, as we have showed before, Quaest 1.2. Ergo, he is not here in his successor. 2 That primacy which Peter had, could not be conveyed to any other: namely, his primacy of confession, which he first of all the Apostles did utter concerning Christ, proceeding from faith, did adhere so to his person, that it could not be derived to any successor of his: for Peter's faith was a proper adjunct to himself, Argument. Tonstalli, Fox. pag. 1066. Again, how can he have the Apostolic authority being not an Apostle: But an Apostle he is not: for Christ only made Apostles, the Apostles did not ordain other Apostles, Argum. Nili. 3 He succeed not Peter rightly in place: for seeing Peter sat at Antioch: why may not that Church challenge succession, as well as Rome? Why might not also other Churches have Apostolic succession, as Alexandria from Peter and Mark, Herusalem from james, Constantinople from Andrew? Further, they have no certain succession from Peter: Tertullian maketh Clement the next successor to Peter. Optatus first nameth Linus, than Clement: Irenaeus, after Peter, placeth Linus, and Cletus, and Clement in the fourth: What certainty therefore can they have of so uncertain succession? Fulk. annot. in Rom. 16. sect. 4. 4 It skilleth not who cometh in the place & room of the Apostles: They that will be their true successors, must follow their example, and walk in their steps, teaching their doctrine and embracing their holy virtues. Wherefore the Pope is not Peter's right successor, swerving both from his doctrine & example. Non sanctorum filii sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum. They are not the children of the Saints, which occupy the same places, but they which do their works, Lambert. Fox pag. 1120. So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him, that in respect of his pomp and pride, he did rather succeed Constantine, than Peter, johann. Huss. pag. 610. 5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors, as the Pope, nay rather than he, being a wicked man, john. Huss. articul. 4. Fox. pag. 590. Lambert. pag. 1120. Nay, they have greater and more excellent titles▪ then to be called the Apostles successors: for those that walk in obedience unto God's commandments, our Saviour calleth them, his sisters, kinsfolks 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 hody Anastasius sedet: Cont. Petil. lib. 2. ca ●1. vel ecclesiae Hyerosolymitanae, in qua jacobus sedit, & in qua hody johannes sedet. What hath the Sea of Rome done unto thee, wherein sometime Peter sat, & where Anastasius now sitteth? or what hath the Church or chair of jerusalem committed, where sometime james sat, and john now sitteth? In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolical Churches, as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome. Cap. de precept. eccles. artic. 9 B. And therefore Canisius craftily leaveth out the one half of the sentence, concerning the Church of jerusalem: Neither is it true, which our adversaries say, that Peter's Sea remaineth still at Rome, when all other Apostolical Sees are gone: for even to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriarch: likewise the See of Alexandria. The See of Constantinople never wanted successors to this day: nor the Church of Ephesus: In India and Aethiopia, there hath been always a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles, and is at this day, Fulk. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 7. Wherefore they have no cause to brag of their succession, which is found in other places, as well as at Rome. THE FIFT QUESTION CONCERNING THE primacy of the See of Rome. THis question hath divers parts, which must be handled in their order. First, whether the Bishop of Rome have authority over other Bishops. Secondly, whether appeals ought to be made to Rome from other countries. Thirdly, whether the Pope be subject to the judgement of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fiftly, what primacy he hath over other Churches, & how it began. Sixtly, of the titles and names given to the Bishops of Rome. THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authority over other Bishops. The Papists. error 41 THey doubt not to say, that the Bishop of Rome hath authority and aught so to have, to ordain and constitute Bishops, to deprive and depose them, to restore them likewise to their former dignities, and this power he exerciseth over the universal Church. The jesuits principal & only argument is drawn from certain examples: how the Bishops of Rome have in times past, constituted, deposed, and restored some Bishops in the Greek Church, as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch: Ergo, he hath power over all Bishops. We answer: First, It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops, any such constitution, or deposition, though perhaps their consent and allowance were required, as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperor, about the ordaining of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: Satis sit, quod vestrae pietatis auxilio & mei favoris assensu episcopatum tantae urbis obtinuit: It is sufficient, Epistol. 54. that by your godly help and my favourable assent, he hath obtained so famous a Bishopric. Whether was greater now, the help and furtherance of the Emperor, or the base assent of Leo? Secondly, we deny not but that the Pope sometimes, what by sufferance of others, what by his own intrusion, hath usurped this power over other Bishops: by this ought not to make a law: that which is once or twice done by a false title, cannot prove the justness of the title. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authority, it appeareth by this, that he doth not, neither of many years hath constituted or ordained the patriarchs of the Greek Church: they came not up to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts have done, & paid full dearly for them, being made slaves to the beast of Rome. The Protestants. THat the Pope neither hath, nor yet aught to have any such authority over other Bishops: but that every one in his own precinct, and jurisdiction hath the chief charge: It is thus proved. 1. Peter was not chief, neither did exercise jurisdiction over the twelve: Ergo, neither the Pope ought to do over other Bishops. The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed. The heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church of God, is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation only of Peter, but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles: argument. Tunstalli. To this purpose also he allegeth in saying out of Hierome contra jovinian. Fox. p. 106● All the Apostles received the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and upon them all indifferently and equally, is the strength of the Church grounded and established. Fox. p. 1066. 2. Till the year of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome, but every Church was ruled by their own government: afterward followed the Council of Nice, wherein was decreed, that the whole Church should be divided into four circuits or precincts: over the which there were four metropolitans or patriarchs set: first the Bishop of Rome: next the Bishop of Alexandria: the third was the Bishop of Antioch: the fourth the Bishop of jerusalem: and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the room of the B. of Antioch. All these had equal authority in their provinces, and one was not to deal within another's charge: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome had not then the jurisdiction over the whole Church, argument. Nili. plura Fox. p. 9 3. We will adjoin the testimony of the fathers of Basile, which were all of the Popish sect: what have the Bishops been in our days say they, but only shadows? might they not have been called shepherds without sheep? what had they more than their Mitres and their staff, when they could determine nothing over their subjects? Verily in the primitive Church, the Bishops had the greatest power and authority: but now it was come to that point, Fox. p. ●79. col. 1. that they exceeded the common sort of priests only in their habit and revenues. What plainer testimony can we have, then from the papists themselves? Augustine also agreeth to their sentence: habet omnis episcopus, saith he, De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 2. pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, quomodo nec ipse potest alium judicare, sed expectemus universi judicium domini nostri jesu Christi: Every Bishop is privileged by his own authority to follow his own judgement, neither is subject to the judgement of other Bishops, as he is not to judge them, but they all must be referred to the judgement of Christ: See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest room in the Church, and saith, they have no judge above them but Christ. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING appeals to be made to Rome. The Papists. Such, say they, is the pre-eminent authority of the Bishop of Rome, that appeals error 42 may be made unto him from all Churches in the world, and that all aught to stand to his sentence and determination. For the proof hereof they bring no scripture, nor any sound argument, but stand chief upon certain odd examples of some that have appealed to Rome: which we deny not to have been done: but our answer more at large is this. 1. One cause of these appeals, was both for that, they which were justly condemned of other Churches, found greater liberty and favour at Rome, as Apiarius did, who being condemned in the 6. African Council for his detestable conditions, found favour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who wrote for him to the Council to be received again. No marvel then, if licentious fellows, hoping to find more favour at Rome, did appeal thither: As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat help forward this matter, who were as ready to receive such appeals, as others were to make them. 2. Bishop Tunstal doth answer very fully to this point, that, although appeals were made to Rome, yet was it not for any jurisdiction that the See had: but this was the cause, partly for that there were many divisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches, as also because many were infected with heresies, from the which the West & Occidental Churches were more free, they were content to refer the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome, as being a more indifferent judge, and not like to be partial, being no party in the cause. Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly, but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italy and France, or of the whole West, as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile. Tunstal. apud Fox. 1067. The Protestants. That appeals ought not to be made to Rome, but that all matters and controversies may best be ended and determined at home, where they do arise: It is thus confirmed. 1. This matter was notably handled, anno 420. in the sixth Council of Carthage, where Augustine was present, with Prosper and Orosius: To this Council Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certain requests, of the which this was one, that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeal from the sentence of their metropolitans, and also of the Council to Rome: alleging for himself a decree of the Nicene Council. The Council of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch & Alexandria, for a copy of the Council of Nice, wherein no such Canon was found, that appeals should be made to Rome: but the contrary: for in the sixth Canon of that Council, it was found how all matters, and all persons ecclesiastical, both Bishops and others were committed to their metropolitans: upon this decree the Council of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeals should not be made to Rome. First, it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the grace of God is as ready at hand in one province as in another. Secondly, there is no need to seek any outlandish help: for the party grieved may appeal to a provincial or general Council. Thirdly, it were not equal nor right to appeal from the Council to the Bishop of Rome: for it is not like, that God will inspire his truth unto the Bishop, and deny it to a multitude congregated in his name. Fourthly, no foreign or outlandish judgement can be so upright or just: because the witnesses cannot be present, being hindered by infirmity of sex, age, sickness, by whom the truth should be discussed. Upon these reasons the Council concluded, that neither any appeals should be made to Rome: neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters: And this answer they made to Zozimus first, to Bonifacius and Celestinus, that in short time one succeeded another. And for all the B. of Rome his absolution, Apiarius was again called coram, and brought to confess his fault. Fox. p. 10. col. 2. Now out of the Acts of this Council, and their reasons alleged we conclude, that it is not fit, convenient nor reasonable, that appeals should be made to Rome. The jesuite answereth, that appeals were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome, not by Bishops. This is but a vain shift, for the reasons of the Council are general against all appeals: And Apiarius, that appealed to Rome, was a priest, and no Bishop. 2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Council, than this of Carthage: for in the Council of Basile it was decreed, that no actions or controversies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome▪ which were more than four days journey distant from the said court of Rome, a few principal matters only excepted, apud Fox. p. 697. 3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle, that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off. Is it so, saith he, that there is not a wise man amongst you, no not one that can judge amongst his brethren? 1. Cor. 6.5. Ergo, every Church hath wise men sufficient in it, whereby their controversies may be ended. 4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter, Miltiades Episcopus Romanus, non sibi usurpavit judicium de causa Ceciliani, sed rogatus imperator judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not usurp or take upon himself to judge the cause of Cecilian, but the Emperor being requested, sent other bishops, that should sit and determine the cause together with him. Out of these words first we note, that it had been usurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to have taken upon him the judgement of this matter, not belonging unto him, unless the Emperor had committed it. Secondly, that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sit with him, as Bellarmine imagineth: but, he could not otherwise choice, for they were joined in commission by the Emperor, to be judges as well as he. Thus we see what small show or colour of title the Pope hath, to hear or receive appeals from other countries. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE Pope be subject to the judgement of any. The Papists. error 43 THe Pope neither can nor aught to be judged either of the Emperor, or any other Seculare or ecclesiastical Magistrate, no not of any general Council, Bellarmin. cap. 26. Nay, he should do injury unto GOD, to submit himself to the judgement of any, jacobat. ex Tilhemann. de pontiff. rom. ere. 34. Beside certain blind canons and constitutions, and a few examples grounded upon the insolent practices of Popes, they have no other arguments either out of scripture, or drawn from reason, to confirm this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal. Bellarmine reasoneth thus: the Prince is not to be judged by the commonwealth: but is greater than his kingdom: the Pope is the prince of the Church: Ergo We answer: First, concerning the Prince's high and Sovereign authority we will not now dispute: we make it not infinite, the word of God must be a rule and square both of civil and ecclesiastical judgement. Secondly, It is sufficient for us here to answer, that the jesuite hath said nothing: for this which he assumeth for a reason, is the greatest matter in question between us: and so great an untruth he hath uttered, that he is constrained to leave scripture, and seek help elsewhere. But he shall never, by any good reason, or sufficient authority prove, that the Pope hath any such Princedom in the Church, as he would bear us in hand. The Protestants. THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiastical persons, aught to be, and is by right subject to the judgement and authority of the Emperor, King, Prince, or other supreme magistrate, and may also by general Counsels be corrected and censured, thus it is proved. 1. Peter was judged of Paul, Galat. 2. and of him justly reproved: Ergo, the doings of the Pope may be judged and censured. Bellarmine answereth, that it was not iudicialis censurae, but fraterna correptio, it was no judicial censure, but a brotherly reprehension. We reply: First, public censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiastical judgement and discipline, therefore Peter being publicly rebuked, was thereby judged also of Paul. Secondly, the question is not only concerning public & open judgement, but whether it be lawful to call the Pope's doings into question, & whether his decrees are absolutely to be received without any scamning or discussing, or making any doubt thereof: for this we hold, that it is the duty of all Christians to examine and try the truth of all things, which they are to receive and believe, though they sit not formally and judicially, as in consistories: to judge their spiritual pastors: so the Beraeans judged of the Apostles doctrine: so may the Pope's decrees be examined and judged. Thirdly, the jesuite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproved, but the Extravagant denieth it: non est, qui audeat dicere, domine curfacis sic? none dare say unto him, sir why dost thou so? Fulk. 2. Gal. 2. sect. 8. 2. Every soul must be subject to the higher powers, Ergo, the Pope, Rom. 13.1. Bellarm. answereth, that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiors both spiritual and temporal, and therefore it cannot be concluded, that the Pope ought to obey, but he must be obeyed, because he is also a spiritual power. We reply: Saint Paul in this place speaketh only of the civil Magistrate. First he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Princes, which is not meant of ecclesiastical or Church governors, nor so taken in any place of scripture. Secondly, they are said to bear the sword. Thirdly, tribute is paid to them: those things agree not to ecclesiastical governors: so the jesuite is answered. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER THE Pope may be deposed from his papacy. The Papists. SOme of them hold that the Pope ought not, neither can be deposed for heresy; error 44 because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresy. Pighius the jesuite confesseth this to be a probable opinion: but himself defendeth it not: he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus, that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparent heresy. Bellarmine's opinion is this: that the pope can not be deposed for any cause but heresy: and not for all heresy, but that which is manifest and apparent: Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church, but is of himself deposed, and ceaseth any more to be pope: so the Church may afterward punish him, but he is then no Pope, for as soon as he is become an heretic, his popedom in the very Act is gone from him, Bellarmin. cap. 30. He reasoneth thus: A manifest heretic is not so much as a member of the Church, much less can he be pope, who they say is the head of the Church, and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without any sentence: and if afterward the Church proceed against him, they do not judge the Pope▪ for he had lost his papacy before. We answer: First, if a manifest heretic be actually deposed, it is by the secret judgement and sentence of God: for by no other authority can he be deposed as they hold: but before God manifest heresy, and close and secret heresy is all one: therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresy, and not only for manifest: and so some of the papists think, as johann. de Turre veniata. Secondly, what call you manifest heresy? or how is he known to be a manifest heretic? Can he be an heretic before he be convinced? shall judgement pass against him uncondemned? A murderer is a dead man by law, yet he liveth till judgement pass upon him: so is the Pope being an heretic, yet Pope, till he be judicially proceeded against; as a murderer dead by right is in act yet living, till by law he is deprived of his life. An heretic, saith Saint Paul, after two or three admonitions avoid: that is, saith the jesuite, he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the judge. Be it so, but he must first be admonished, and if he still continue obstinate, than he is a manifest heretic: so before the Pope can be known to be a manifest heretic, he must be found obstinate, he cannot be obstinate, unless he refuse to be admonished, if he be admonished, then is he judged. Thirdly, an heretic ceaseth not to be a priest, (as they speak) no not after heresy is known, for manifest heretics may baptise. The Donatists in Augustine's time were manifest heretics, and yet the Church did not baptise again after them: If a manifest heretic cease not to be a priest, neither ceaseth he to be Pope; there is like reason of both: for if an heretic, because he is not a member of the Church, can not be a Pope, neither also can he retain the priesthood. Lastly, who seethe not what bare and frivolous shifts those are? one saith, the Church may judge the Pope, Caietan. not as he is Pope, but in respect of his person: an other saith, that they may judge the man which was Pope, but he is then no Pope, because his heresy took from him the papacy. Why masters what juggling is here? is the Pope one thing and the Pope's person an other? By the same reason you may say, that the Pope neither eateth, nor drinketh, nor sleepeth, nor dieth, and so make a god of him, because it is the pope's person that doth all this, and not the Pope. And by this shift you make no difference between an heretic Bishop, o● heretic priest, and heretic Pope: for by the same reason, none of them all shall be subject to the judgement of the Church: for we may say, that a manifest heretic, whether Bishop or priest, hath lost by that very act of falling into heresy, his priesthood and Bishopric, and then is neither Bishop nor priest. And so you may conclude altogether: that neither Pope, Bishop nor piest can be deposed from heresy. The Protestants. WE doubt not to say, that the Pope both lawfully hath been deprived sometime by the Emperor, sometime by general Counsels, not only for heresy, but for other notable crimes, and may still be proceeded against by the same right, as well as any other Bishop or Prelate. 1 divers examples we are able to bring forth, how the Pope hath been deposed for other crimes, beside heresy. Pope john the 13. was deposed in a general Council by the consent of Otho the Emperor, for other matter beside heresy: as that he ordained Deacons in a stable, that he committed incest with two of his sisters, that playing at dice, he called to the devil for help, that he deflowered virgins, that he lay with Stephana his father's concubine, likewise with Ramera and Anna, and her Niece: for these beastly parts and such like, he was deposed: there was no heresy objected against him. And think you not he was worthily unpoped? yet the Papists think no: for they admit no cause of deprivation but heresy. This devilish Pope, through the harlots of Rome (for he was well beloved of them) recovered his Popedom again; but at the length the Lord himself displaced him: for in the tenth year of his Popedom, being found without the city with an other man's wife, he was so wounded of her husband, that within eight days after he died, Fox. pag. 159. Boniface the 7. took Pope john the 15. who was made Pope a little before, and he expelled, yet recovering the Papacy by force, he took him, put out his eyes, and threw him in prison where he was famished: Likewise was john the 18. served by Gregory the 5. his eyes were thrust out first, Fox. p. 160. and he afterward slain. I marvel how our Catholics can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome! In the Council of Brixia, Gregory the 7. was deposed, not for heresy, but for other abominable vices: as maintaining of perjury and murders: for following Divinations & Dreams, Sorcery & Necromancy, Fox. p. 181. Pope john the 23. deposed in the Council of Constance: Eugenius in the Council at Basile: yet neither of them for heresy. And yet our adversaries would still make us believe, that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresy. 2 We can have no better argument, then from our adversaries themselves. It is a sport to see what divers opinions they hold, and do run as it were in a maze, not knowing which way to get out. Pighius thinketh, that the Pope cannot possibly fall into heresy, and therefore for no cause may be deposed: Some other think that the Pope for secret and close heresy is actually deposed of GOD, and may also be deposed and judged of the Church: thus holdeth johann. de turre cremat. Caietanus is of opinion, that for manifest and open heresy the Pope is both already by right deposed, and may also actually be deposed of the Church: But Bellarmine confuteth all these. There is a fourth opinion most gross: that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresy, is either already of right deposed, or may be actually deprived of the Church. Lastly cometh in the nice and dainty jesuite with his quirks and quiddities, who saith, that the Pope in case of manifest heresy, ceaseth to be Pope, and is even now deposed: and if after the Church proceed against him, they judge not the Pope, for now he is no Pope: Which opinion how absurd it is, I have declared before. THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE Original and beginning of the primacy of Rome. The Papists. THey do boldly affirm without any ground, that the primacy of that See error 45 hath his beginning from no other but Christ: they are the jesuits own words: Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum, authore Christo, principium accepisse: that the princely dignity of the Bishop of Rome, acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof, but Christ, Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2. 1 They would build the primacy of the Roman Church upon certain places of scripture: as Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Luk. 22. I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not fail. john 21. Christ said to Peter, feed my sheep: Ergo, Peter and Peter's successors have their primacy from Christ, Bellarm. To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops, yet in this point holding the truth, did properly make answer in their Epistle sent to Cardinal Poole. To the first: They affirm out of the ancient expositors, that it is meant of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter, and not of Peter's person. Further, confirming out of S. Paul, that neither Peter, nor no creature beside, could be the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can any man lay (saith the Apostle) besides that which is laid, jesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3. To the second they answer: that Christ speaketh only of the fall of Peter, which he knew in his godly prescience, giving an inkling unto him, that after his fall he should be converted and strengthen his brethren: for if it were meant also of Peter's successors, they must first fail in faith, and after confirm their brethren. To the third: The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feed: for he himself testifieth the contrary, exhorting all Pastors to feed the flock of Christ, ●. Pet. 5. which was given them in charge by Christ, as it followeth in that place: when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive the incorruptible Crown of eternal glory: He calleth not himself the chief shepherd, but only Christ. It is evident therefore (say they) that your 3. scriptures meant nothing less, than such a primacy over all, Fox. pag. 1067. 2 There can be no time assigned since Christ (say they) when this primacy should begin, nor no author named that brought it in: Ergo, it must needs be attributed to Christ, he must of necessity be found the author thereof. We answer: the time may be assigned, the authors named, when, and by whom this pretenced and usurped authority was brought in, as even now we will show. The Protestants. THat the usurped jurisdiction of Rome took not the beginning from Christ, nor his Apostles, neither was heard of for many years after: we thus are able to prove it. 1 Before the Nicene Council, which first divided the regiment of the Church into four Patriarchal seats: Rome had small or no pre-eminence. So Aeneas Silvius witnesseth, who afterward was Pope of Rome, and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque vivebat, & ad Romanam ecclesiam parvus habebatur respectus, Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Council, every Bishop lived to himself, there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome. What more evident testimony can we have then of a Pope himself? Yet the jesuite saith, that it is false in part, which he writeth. He is somewhat mannerly, in making him but half a liar: yet I wonder that he will confess any untruth at all in his ghostly father's words, Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2. Secondly, in the Council of Nice there was no primacy of power given to Rome over the whole Church: but the other patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, jerusalem, were privileged in like manner in their confines, as the Bishop of Rome was in his: They had all equal authority given them in their own provinces: Sic Tonstall. Stokesli. ad Poolum. Thirdly, afterward there was a certain primacy of order granted unto the Patriarch of Rome above other patriarchs; as to have the first place, to sit first, to give his sentence first. One cause hereof was, for that Rome was then the Imperial and chief city in all the world: this reason was rendered in the Council of Chalcedon. Can. 28. another cause thereof, Fox. pag. 9 was the ample privileges and immunities, which the Emperors endued it withal, as Constantine the great: and Gratianus the Emperor made a law, that all men should retain that religion, which Damasus of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold. A third cause was, the unquiet estate of the Greek Church, who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome, as being less partial and a more indifferent judge, they themselves being divided and rend into sects. And hereupon, and other like causes it came about, Fox. p. 18. that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped above his fellow patriarchs, but yet had no such pre-eminent authority, as to command them. Fourthly, the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vain glory, because they were reverenced of other Churches, many matters were committed unto them, and their consent required unto the decrees of Counsels, when they were absent. Hereupon they laboured every day more and more to advance that See, taking every small occasion that might help forward their ambitious desire, till Anno. 606. or somewhat after, Boniface the 3. obtained of wicked Phocas the Emperor (who murdered his master the Emperor Mauritius and his children, to come to the Empire, and was after slain himself of Heraclius that succeeded him) of him, I say, Boniface for himself and his successors obtained, to be called universal Bishops over the whole Church: Fox. p. 120. and the See of Rome to have the pre-eminence above all other Churches in the world. Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time, the proud and insolent jurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France, who aspired to the Crown, and obtained it by the said Pope's means, first deposing Childericus the rightful King, and dispensing with the oath, which the French men had made before to Childericus, Calum. Institut. 4. cap. 7. sect. 17. Thus than it sufficiently appeareth, that the primacy of Rome, which it now unjustly challengeth over other Churches, is not of any such antiquity, as they would bear the world in hand, neither that it had the beginning from Christ: but both the time when, and the authors by whom it began, may be easily assigned. 2 We need no better argument, to prove that the primacy of Rome hath not his original from Christ, than the jesuits own confession. First, he saith, that it doth not depend of Christ's institution, but, ex Petri facto, of Peter's fact, that the Bishop of Rome should be rather Peter's successor, than the Bishop of Antioch, or any other: It is not, iure divino, saith he, by God's law: neither is it, ex prima institutione pontificatus, quae in evangelio legitur, of the first institution whereof we read in the Gospel. And again, Romanum pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur express in scriptures: It is not expressly set down in scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter: but it is grounded only upon the tradition of Peter. Nay, he saith further, that Peter needed not to have chosen any particular place for succession, and he might as well have chosen Antioch as Rome: Ergo, neither is the succession of Rome grounded upon scripture, neither any commandment of Christ: for then Peter could not have had free choice to appoint his successor where he would himself, as the jesuite saith, if he had had any especial direction or commandment from Christ. So then, mark I pray you, they cannot prove out of scripture, that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeed Peter in the chief Bishopric, but only that Peter had the chief Bishopric committed to him and his successors in general, whosoever they should appoint: Ergo, the Bishops of Rome by their own confession, can allege no scripture, institution, or commandment of Christ, for the primacy of the Church to be annexed to the See of Rome: and yet against their knowledge they will allege scripture to colour the matter withal, Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontiff. ca 17. 3 Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam ecclesiae usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio maior est. The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, according to the names of honour, which the Church by custom hath obtained. If then the difference of those two offices, both named in scripture, did arise rather and spring of the custom of the Church, which thought it good to distinguish them for avoiding of schism, and is not grounded upon the authority of scripture: much less can the Pope (whose neither name, nor office is expressed in scripture) fetch from thence any show of proof, for his usurped primacy. THE sixth PART OF THIS QUESTION, CONCERning the proud names and vain glorious titles of the Pope. The Papists. BEllarmine setteth down to the number of fifteen glorious names which error 46 have been of old given (as he saith) to the Bishop of Rome, whereby his primacy over other Bishops is notoriously known: but the principal are these: He is called the Pope and chief Father, the prince of Priests, or high Bishop, the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, the Prelate of the Apostolic See, universal Bishop. These six names or titles they do appropriate to the See of Rome, Bellarm. de Roman. pontiff. lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants. WE will show by God's grace, that these six several titles and names aforesaid, are either such, as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop, nor any mortal man▪ or else were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops, as to him of Rome. 1 For the first name of Pope, it is derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the Syracusane language, is as much as, Father: which name was indifferently given to other Bishops, which were famous in the Church for their virtue and learning: As Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, were called Papae, Popes: Fox. pag. 8. Augustine saluteth Aurelius Precedent of the 6. Council of Carthage, by the name of Pope, Epistol. 77. Likewise, those two epithets of the Pope, as to be called, Beatissim. & sanctissim. pater: most holy and blessed father, were used in the style of other Bishops: Prosper, in his Epistle to Augustine, twice calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam, Lord, most blessed Pope, Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius, Beatum papam, blessed Pope, Ad Eustach. Fabiol. Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter, or Priest, being no Bishop, yet thus saluteth him: Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit, he hath written to your holiness. De origine anim. 2.1. De origine anim. lib. 1. cap. 2. Nay, in his book dedicated to Renatus a lay man, neither Priest nor Bishop, thus he writeth, Hinc angor, quòd sanctitati tuae▪ minus quàm vellem cognitus sum: This grieveth me, that I am not so well known to your holiness as I desire. If then these titles of holiness and blessedness were not only given to Bishops, but Priests also, yea unto lay men of virtuous and holy life; what colour or show of reason can our adversaries have, to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome? 2 The second name is prince of Priests, or high and chief Bishop: which title, if it be taken for a chief power, dominion, and sovereignty, is proper only to Christ the chief shepherd, 1. Pet. 5.4. and cannot in that sense agree to any man. If it be used only as a title of excellency 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, chief Bishop: yea it was in common given to all Bishops: as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus: Summi sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a deo judicandi sunt: The high Priests, that is, Bishops (saith he) are to be judged of God. If it be taken further for the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel, and the worthy calling of Christians, in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium, of the high Priesthood, is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiastical, both Bishops and others: Fox pag. 12 Col. 1. so Fabianus Bishop of Rome useth this name. Yea, the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a princely, royal, or chief priesthood: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome hath no especial or proper interest in this name. 3 The third name is, to be called the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Where we are to understand, that in respect of the spiritual regiment and kingdom of Christ, he needeth no Vicegerent upon earth: for, I am with you (saith he) to the end of the world: he himself is always present in power, and needeth not in that respect, that any man should supply his room. Petrus scriba martyr. Fox. pag. 906. If we do take it for a word of office and public administration, so the Magistrate may be called the Vicar of Christ, in governing the people according to the word of God: In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius King of the Britain's, calleth him the Vicar of Christ, and therefore in his own kingdom had power out of the word of God to establish laws, Fox. p. 107. for the government of the people. So all Bishops, Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ, in preaching, praying, binding and losing in the name and power of Christ. Quaest ex ●uoque 127. So Augustine saith, or whose work else it is, that, Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius: Every pastor and prelate (and not the Pope only) 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, Quaest 106 that is, his Vicars. Nay, Augustine maketh yet a more general use 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 upon earth. So then, all ministers are the Vicars of Christ; the civil Magistrate likewise, in some good sense, may be so called: yea in respect of the creatures, man generally is upon earth in God's stead: Ergo, this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome. 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortal man to bear, to be called the head of the universal Church: this is a name only due unto Christ, neither do the scriptures acknowledge any other head, but him, Ephes. 1.22.4.15. But (say they) we do not make the Pope such an head, as Christ is, but only a ministerial head over the militant Church upon earth. We answer: First, Ergo, the Pope by your own confession is not head of the universal Church, whereof the triumphant Church in heaven is a part. Secondly, the Rhemists confess that the Church in no sense can be called the body of the Pope: Ergo, the Pope cannot be any ways the head of the universal Church, Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly, the Fathers of Basile used this argument: The head of the body being dead, the whole body also dieth; 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 be further objected, that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past, caput Episcoporum, the head of all other Bishops: we answer, that it was but a title of excellency and commendation, not of dominion and power: as London is called the head or chief city of England, yet are not other cities of the land subject unto it, or under the jurisdiction thereof. But we shall have occasion more fully to discuss this matter afterward. 5 They would have the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolic See: the Rhemists say further, that the Papal dignity is a continual Apostleship, Annot. 4. Ephes. sect. 4. We answer: First, if they call those Churches Apostolical, whose first founders were the Apostles, than the See of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, are as well Apostolical as Rome: and this the jesuite denieth not, Lib. 2. de pontific. cap. 31. Secondly, those Churches are Apostolical, which hold the Apostolic faith: so is not the See of Rome Apostolical, being departed and gone back from the ancient Catholic faith: but those Churches where the Gospel of jesus Christ is truly preached, are indeed Apostolic. Thirdly, how can the Pope be an Apostle, or have Apostolic authority, seeing he preacheth not at all, much less to the whole world, wherein consisted the office of an Apostle? Neither can he show his immediate calling from Christ, as all the Apostles could: for seeing he challengeth the Apostolic office by tradition from S. Peter, and not by commandment from Christ; he can in no wise be counted an Apostle, or his office an Apostleship: for the Apostles ordained only Evangelists and Pastors, they had not authority to consecrate and constitute new Apostles. Our adversaries for this their Apostleship, can find nothing in scripture, nor for a thousand years after Christ in the ancient writers, Fulk. annot. in Ephes. 4. sect. 4. 6 Concerning the title of universal Bishop, it was thus decreed in the sixth Council of Carthage, as it is alleged by Gratian: Distinct. 99 universalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur: No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called universal. In Gregory the first his time, john Patriarch of Constantinople, obtained of the Emperor Mauritius to be called universal Patriarch: but Gregory would not agree thereunto, calling him the forerunner of Antichrist, that would challenge so proud a name. Bellarmine and other of that sect do answer, that Gregory found fault with this title, Lib. 2 de pont. ca 31. because john of Constantinople would have been Bishop alone, and none other to be beside him, but all other only to be his deputies and vicar's. To this we reply: First, john did only challenge a superiority over other Bishops, not to be Bishop alone, for this had been a thing impossible. Secondly, if john had sought any such thing, it is not like that the Chalcedone Council and the Emperor would have yielded to so unreasonable a matter as they did. Thirdly, Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria doth call the said Gregory universal Pope, which name he utterly refuseth: and yet Eulogius had no such meaning to make him Bishop or Patriarch alone, but only to give him a pre-eminence above the rest. Fox. pag. 13 This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregory, in stead of the title, Universal, brought it into the Pope's style to be called servus servorum dei, servant to God's servants: Ergo, we conclude with Gregory, that this title. Universal, is an Antichristian name, and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselves, and how other patriarchs and Bishops have challenged that ambitious name and title, as well as the Popes of Rome. THE sixth QUESTION, WHETHER THE Pope may err, or not. The Papists. THey deny not but that both the Pope by himself, and together with a error 47 whole Council, may be deceived in matters of fact, that is, in historical points, and the truth of things that are done, because it dependeth of the testimony and information of men: But in matters of faith and doctrine, the Pope determining with the Council, is not subject to error: yea, the Pope by himself alone decreeing any thing concerning faith cannot be deceived, Bellar. lib. 4. de pontific. cap. 1●. No nor yet in precepts of manners prescribed to the Church by the Pope, is there any fear or danger of error, cap. 5. Yea, it is probable (saith he) that the Pope, not only as Pope, cannot err, but not as a private person, is it like he should fall into heresy, or hold any obstinate opinion contrary to the faith? cap. 6. 1 Luke 22.31. Simon, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Christ here prayeth for Peter, and his successors, that they might not at any time err, or be deceived in matters of faith, Bellar. cap. 3. Rhem. annot. in Luk. 22. sect. 11. We answer: First, this was a particular prayer for Peter, that his faith should not fail in that great and dangerous tentation, into the which, our Saviour foresaw, he should fall: For if it were to be understood of Peter's successors, they also must first be sifted by Satan as Peter was, and deny Christ, and so being converted strengthen their brethren: if they will understand one part of Peter's successors, I pray you, why not all? Secondly, Our Saviour prayeth likewise for all his Apostles, that they might be sanctified in the truth, yea for all, that should believe by their preaching: yet is not every Christian privileged from all error of faith. Thirdly, after this Peter himself erred, and was reprehended of Saint Paul. Fulk. annot. in Luk. 22. sect. 11. 2. The high Priests that sat in Moses chair were privileged not to err. Ergo, much more now are the chief pastors of the Church free from error, Bellarm. cap. 3. Rhemist. Luk. 22. sect. 11. We answer: the high Priests had no such privilege, for some of them fell into strange errors: Vriah the high Priest set up an idolatrous altar at the kings commandment, 2. King. 16. Eliashib was joined in Affinity with Tobiah the Ammonite, contrary to the law of God, Fulk. ibid. The Protestants. THat the Popes and Bishops of Rome have not only erred in manners, but even in faith; and not only privately and personally as men, but pulikely and judicially as Popes; that they have by their public and open preaching, defence, allowance, and consent approved and established erroneous, and some heretical opinions: thus we trust to make it plain and evident to all men. 1. Peter erred: Ergo, the Pope may, though he were Peter's successor. First, Peter erred in denying of Christ: the jesuite answereth: First, he began not yet to be the chief Bishop, which he entered not into till after the resurrection, when Christ said unto him, Feed my sheep, john 21. therefore all this while he might err. A goodly answer: I pray you tell me, was not the Church before Christ's passion, and after, built upon the same rock? I trow they cannot deny it: but Peter was not the rock before, therefore not after. If he were therefore called a rock because of his confession of Christ, why should he not then rather, strait after his confession, take possession of his office, then immediately after his denial of Christ? Surely this is but a silly shift. Secondly, saith the jesuite, Peter failed in charity when he denied Christ, not in faith, cap. 3. and if he failed in faith, he lost the confession of faith, and not faith itself. We answer: First, and can a true faith then be separated from love by your doctrine? The Apostles knew no such faith: Saint james saith, it is a dead faith that is without the works of love, and the faith of devils, that is, no faith, james 2.17.19. If then Peter's love failed, his faith also failed. Secondly, we do not say that Peter's faith was lost and utterly extinguished, for Christ prayed for him, but whether it were an error in faith which Peter fell into: for it is not all one to err in faith, or clean to lose faith. Thirdly, he lost the confession of faith, he denied Christ in word, Ergo: he denied the faith, howsoever he thought in heart: for these two are the principal fruits of faith, to Believe with the heart, and Confess with the mouth, Rom. 10. and where either of these is wanting, there can not be a right faith: for he that putteth away a good conscience, maketh shipwreck also of faith, 1. Tim. 1.19. But the jesuite I see hath a queasy stomach, let him cough up lustily, and say with one of his fellows, Petrus non fidem Christi, Alan. Cop. sed Christum salva fide negavit. Peter denied not the faith of Christ, but, his faith remaining sound and whole, he only denied Christ. Lo, here is new popish divinity, that a man may deny Christ, and yet not deny the faith. Secondly, Peter erred in constraining the Gentiles to do as the jews. Bellarmine saith, it was an error in example & conversation, not in faith or doctrine, cap. 7. We answer: First, in this example of Peter there was also included an error in faith, for how should the Gentiles better know Peter's judgement, then by his example, by the which they fell into an error of faith, and were constrained to conform themselves like to the jews: thinking that the jewish ceremonies were necessary to be retained? Secondly, Saint Paul himself saith, they went not the right way to the truth of the Gospel: Ergo, they erred from the truth of the Gospel, and so in faith. Thirdly, the divines of Paris do attribute to Peter an error in faith, Fulk. annot. 4. Galat. sect. 9 2. We can produce many examples of the Popes, which have erred judicially, namely, openly have maintained errors. To let pass Marcellinus, who sacrificed to Idols, as a slip of his person, and he afterward repent him of his fall: yet by the way the jesuite is deceived, that thinketh it probable, that the Pope's particular person cannot fall into heresy: here you see Marcellinus fell into Idolatry. Liberius subscribed to the Arrians, consented to the condemnation of Athanasius: as testifieth Jerome, confessed by Nicolaus Cusanus, and Alphonsus de castro, both papists, jewel. pag. 164. defence. Apolog. Honorius 1. consented to the heresy of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who was a Monothelite, and held, that there were not two wills or operations in Christ, Lib. 6. de loc. cap. vl. and so destroyed the two natures. That Honorius was a Monothelite, Melchior Canus a papist confesseth: he was condemned for an heretic in the 6.7. and 8. general synods. Bellarmine answereth, that the Counsels are corrupted, or they might be deceived in judgement, as in a matter of fact: or that Honorius only misliked the speech, to say there were two wills in Christ, and not the thing. See what poor shifts here be to make Honorius no heretic, and yet all will not be. Pope Stephen the sixth took up Formosus body, and cut off two fingers of his right hand, and buried him again in a layman's Sepulchre: Then followed Rhomanus the first, Theodorus the second, johannes the ninth, and restored Formosus with his decrees, judging him to be lawful Bishop. After them cometh Sergius the third, who took up the body again, cut off the head, and cast it into Tiber. The jesuite answereth, that Stephanus and Sergius erred only in a matter of fact. A goodly cloak to cover the filthiness of their Ghostly fathers withal. But by your leave a little: do you not hold it to be an article of faith to believe the Pope to be head of Christ's Church? Then was it an article of faith to hold that Formosus was right Pope, for at that time there was no other. Ergo, Stephanus and Sergius erred in faith, defining the contrary. All that you can say, is this: that it was not yet determined and decreed for an article of faith, so to believe: see I pray you, these men's faith is pinned upon Pope's sleeves. Why masters, the rule of faith is certain, you cannot make new articles of faith now, but only declare and explain those that are. But do you not think that these jolly Popes, that would rake the dead out of their graves, for their holiness might deserve at GOD'S hand, to have a privilege not to err in faith? Silvester the second was a Necromancer and a conjuror, and therefore fallen from the faith. Bellarmine saith: he was a good man, and all are fables and lies that are told of him: and because he was cunning in Geometry, that ignorant age straightways judged him to be given to Necromancy. Thus we may take the jesuits word, if we will. But the story is reported by authors of better credit than Bellarmine: as johannes Stella, Platina, Petrus Premonstratens. Nauclerus, Antoninus. Fox. pag. 167. Anastasius was a Nestorian heretic, whose heresy was this, that there are, as two natures, so also two persons in Christ, Alphons. de castro. lib. 1. de haeresib. cap. 4. Celestinus is reported by Laurentius Valla a Canon of Rome, to have been a Nestorian heretic, de donation. Constantin. Now cometh in Pope Hildebrand, or rather Heldebrand, for he was a very brand of hell fire: called Gregory the seventh: Of whom Benno writeth thus: that he poisoned six Popes his predecessors to make himself a way to the popedom: that he was a conjuror, a raiser of Devils, and in his rage he cast the sacrament into the fire. But saith Harding our country man, though unworthily, Benno was his enemy, and wrote of displeasure: and Bellarmine thinketh that some lutheran was the author of the book, which goeth under the name of Benno, who was Cardinal in this Hildebrands' time. But Benno only doth not thus report of him: he was openly twice for the same crimes condemned in Council: first at Worms: them after deposed in the Council at Brixia in Italy, & Pope Clement 3. elected to succeed him. Vrspergens. And the said Gregory died in exile, of whom Antonius reporteth, that before his death, he repent him of his insolency showed toward the Emperor Henry the 4. whom with his wife and young child bare foot, and bare legged, he had caused three days together, in extreme frost and cold, to wait at his palace gates at Canusium, Fox. p. 179. jewel. p. 168. defen. apol. before he could speak with him. Yet this Hildebrand for all these insolent, cruel, and dishonest parts, is commended by our papists, Harding, Bellarmine and other, for a devout Catholic man, who did all things of a zeal to the Church. By this you may judge, whom our adversaries count a Catholic man. Pope john the 22. affirmed, that the souls lie in a trance till the day of judgement, and feel neither pain nor joy. Harding, and likewise Bellarmine answer, that this was an error, but no heresy. Yet in the University of Paris, it was condemned for heresy, as Gerson writeth. Again saith Harding, he held it only as a private opinion. But Massaeus saith, that Pope john preached this heresy and sent out preachers to maintain it. He was condemned (saith he) with his error by the divines of Paris in the presence of Philip the French King, before he was Pope, when he was yet but a private Doctor. But the contrary is proved by B. jewel, that he was Pope 13. years before Philip was king, jewel. defence. apolog. p. 667. Pope john the 23. denied the life to come, and the resurrection of the body: And this heresy was openly objected against him in the Council of Constance. Bellarmine and Harding before him, answer, that he was not the rightful Pope, for there were three at that time, and therefore might err. But Platina saith, that he was chosen at Bonoma, by the consent of all the Cardinals, ex jewel. pag. 671. Lastly, Pope Eugenius the 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretic in the Council of Basile. Where the jesuite hath no other answer, then by condemning the Council as Schismatical, to acquit the Pope, Lib. 3. de pontiff. cap. 14. By these examples it may appear to the indifferent reader, that it is no rare nor impossible thing, for the Popes of Rome to err, yea become plain heretics: And as for that shift of the jesuite, that they are no longer Popes, when they openly begin to teach heresy, this is, as Alphonsus saith, In re seria verbis velle iocari, De haeresib. lib. 1. cap. 4. to dally with words in a serious and earnest matter. And so every Bishop shall be as well privileged as the Pope, and cannot fall into heresy: for why may we not say that a Bishop, when he is known to be an heretic, ceaseth to be Bishop any longer, as the Pope is no longer Pope, and so as long as he remaineth Bishop, cannot possibly be an heretic? Surely this is but paltry and beggarly stuff. De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 3. 4. Augustine is not a whit afraid to say, Episcoporum literas per sermonem sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ear peritioris, & per aliorum episcoporum graviorem authoritatem, & per concilia licere reprehendi, si in eyes à veritate deviatum sit. That the decrees of all Bishops whatsoever (not excluding Popes) may be corrected either by the sentence of wiser men in that point, wherein they erred, or by the better advised sentence of other Bishops, or by Counsels may be reversed, where they do err. Ergo, it is possible for Popes, by his judgement, to err. A PART OR APPENDIX OF THIS Question, whether the Church of Rome may err or not. The Papists. THey do not only affirm that the Pope cannot err, but that the Church error 48 of Rome also cannot be deceived in matters of faith, so long as the Apostolic See remaineth there, which they say is like there to remain to the end of the world. Bellarm. lib. 3. de pontiff. cap. 4. Hereupon Panormitane doubteth not to say, that he would prefer the judgement of the Cardinals of Rome, before the judgement of the whole world: this he said, standing up in the Council of Basile, Fox. pag. 669. ex Aenea Syluio. 1. The Rhemists upon those words of Saint Paul, Rom. 1.5. your faith is published through the whole world, do thus infer: See (say they) the great providence of God in the preservation of the Roman common faith. In times past the Roman faith and Catholic all one: Ergo, that See cannot err in faith. We answer: they must prove their Romish faith and popish religion, to be the same which was praised and commended by the Apostle, or else they gain nothing: but that shall they never do. 2. So long as the Apostolic See remaineth at Rome, it shall be preserved from error, but that is like there to remain till the world's end: for it only remaineth, when all other Apostolic Sees are gone: and it is very probable, that if this See could have been overthrown, it should have been done by the incursion and invasion of the Goths, Vandals, Turks, the emulation of Princes, divisions and schisms of Popes themselves: yet for all this it standeth still, and hath so continued almost 1600. years, and shall so continue still. Ergo, the Roman Church can not err. Bellarmin. lib. 2. cap. 4. Rhemist. annot. in Thessaly. 2. sect. 7. We answer: First, it is a great untruth, that all other Apostolic Sees are gone, for there is a succession at Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, even at this day. Secondly, it is false, that the See of Rome hath continued in that religion it now professeth, which indeed is no religion, but superstition and heresy, these 1600. years: for first till Gregory's time, which was 600. years after Christ, none of the pope's would be called universal Bishops: and it was more than 300. years, from Gregory the 1. to Silvester the 2. when sathan is thought fully to be let lose: for he by the devil was advanced to the papacy: All these years therefore you must strike off in your account. Thirdly, that the See of Rome, which is the seat of Antichrist, hath continued many years we grant: for it is the just judgement of God upon the world, because they loved not the truth, that they should be deluded a long time, and deceived by Antichrist, and believe lies: so did Saint Paul prophesy, 2. Thessalonians 2.10, 11. And we grant also that that Antichristian See shall in some sort remain till the coming of Christ, whom he shall destroy with the brightness of his appearing, as Saint Paul saith. You have gained therefore nothing by this, but that Rome is the seat of Antichrist, Fulk. annotat. in 2. Thessalonians 2. sect. 7. The Protestant's. IT is evident and plain, and need not much proof, that the Roman Church, as also any particular visible Church, may not only err in faith, but fall clean away into heresy and Idolatry, as we see it come to pass in the Church of Rome. 1. The Church of Rome hath no better assurance of their continuance, than the Church of the jews had before Christ, no nor yet so great, for they were a peculiar and chosen nation. But judah fell and transgressed, and committed Idolatry in the reign of Ahaz, and therefore the Prophet Esay complaineth and saith, From the sole of the foot to the head, there is nothing sound, cap. 1. ver. 6. Neither are they better than the Church of Ephesus was in Saint john's time, who was as able (I think) to keep that Church from error, as the Pope is to keep Rome: yet the Lord threateneth to remove his candlestick from amongst them, unless they did amend, reve. 2.5. Ergo, the Church of Rome may err. 2. The Pope may err, as we have before showed, Ergo the Church of Rome: for the Apostolic See, as they say, is the cause that no error can approach or come near them. Therefore (me thinketh) the jesuite committeth a foul absurdity, in saying, the Church of Rome cannot so much as err personally, and yet they grant that the Pope may err personally. So by this reason the body should have a greater privilege than the head: the Church of Rome should be freer from error then the Pope, who should preserve it from error: this sure is a great absurdity in Popish divinity, Bellarmin. cap. 4. 3. It is confessed by our adversaries themselves, that the Church of Rome may err: as the Council at Rome under Adriane the second erred, saith the jesuite, in determining Honorius to be an heretic, one of his predecessors. cap. 11. The Council of the Italian Bishops at Brixia erred in condemning Gregory the seventh, who was, if you will believe Harding, a virtuous and an holy man. Nay Paulus iovius a popish Bishop confesseth, that Adrianus 6. was made Pope, mira & pudenda Senatorum factiosorum suffragatione, through the strange and shameful suffrages of factious Cardinals, Lib. 20. fine. because they preferred a stranger before their own order. But our adversaries have a trick, to shift off all this that hath been said: They erred in a matter of fact, not in any point of faith. Yet they cannot so closely convey the matter away: for Panormitane even in such questions also preferreth the judgement of the Cardinals before the whole world, speaking in the defence of Eugenius, who was challenged in the Council of Basile, for the dissolution of the Council, which he did (saith Panormitane) with the advice of the Cardinals: whose judgement he so much esteemeth in this matter, which concerned not faith, namely, for the dissolving of the Council. Fox. p. 669. THE SEVENTH QUESTION OF THE spiritual jurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome. THis question hath two parts: the first, whether the Bishop of Rome have a coactive and constraining power to make laws to bind the conscience, and to punish the transgressors. Secondly, whether other Pastors and Bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God, or from the Pope. Other questions also there are, which belong to this matter, as whether the Pope be the chief judge in controversies of faith, which we have already handled, entreating of the perfection and authority of the scriptures: as also whether it be in the Pope to summon, dissolve, and confirm Counsels, which hath been sufficiently declared before, in the controversy concerning Counsels. Concerning other questions, as the canonizing of Saints, which they say appertaineth to the Pope, the election and confirmation of Bishops, pardons and indulgences, we shall have fit occasion to deal in them, in their several places and controversies. At this time we purpose only to touch these two points aforesaid, of the Pope's Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE POPE may make laws to bind the conscience, and punish the transgressors thereof judicially. The Papists. THat the Pope hath such authority, to make laws for the whole Church, error 49 which shall bind under pain of damnation, as well as the laws of God, it is the general opinion of the papists, Fox. 981. articul. 13. & p. 1101. artic. count Lambert. 29. But they put in this clause, So they be not unjust laws nor contrary to the divine law, Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make laws, having not the authority nor warrant of scripture, neither is it necessary for these laws to be expressed or deduced out of scripture. And these laws are not only of external rites and orders of the Church, but even of things necessary to salvation, Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehends. calvini. Yea he addeth further, that in matters not necessary to salvation, he can not be disobeyed without deadly sin, and offence of conscience, cap. 16. loc. 1. Bulla Leonis 10. adversus Lutherum, Fox. p. 1283. col. 1. 1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood, things strangled, and offered to Idols, concerning the which, Christ gave them no precept: But this law did bind the people in conscience: for every where the Apostles gave strait charge, for the keeping of the decrees, Bellarm. Answer: First, the Apostles commanded no new thing, but the same which they themselves were taught of Christ, that they should take heed of offence: the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keep the decrees concerning such things, then for avoiding of scandal and offence. Secondly, for afterward the offence being taken away, the law also ceased: and Saint Paul giveth liberty, notwithstanding this law, to eat things offered to Idols, if it might be done without offence, Ask no question (saith he) for conscience sake, 1. Cor. 10.27. Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound. 3. It is necessary to have some laws, beside the divine law, for the government of the Church: for the word of God is too universal, neither is sufficient to direct every particular action: therefore other ecclesiastical laws must be added, but every good and necessary law hath a coactive and constraining power, and bindeth the conscience to obedience: Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Counsels, which are the only ecclesiastical laws, do bind the conscience, Bellarmin. cap. 16. lib. 4. Answer: First, the word of God containeth all necessary rules to salvation: wherefore all laws of the Church concerning matters of faith, are but explanations, and interpretations of the rules of faith set forth in scripture, if they be godly laws, and so are not the laws of men but of God, and do bind the conscience to the observation thereof: as the laws of the Church, which command Christians to resort to the congregation to hear God's word, and reverently to receive the sacraments, are the very ordinances and commandments of Christ, who enjoined his Apostles to preach, and baptise, and his faithful people to hear and to be baptised, and therefore in conscience we are bound to the obedience hereof. Secondly, there are other ecclesiastical laws appointed for the public order of the Church, concerning external rites and circumstances of persons and place, as the hours of prayer, the form of the liturgy & public service, the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments, and such like. These and such like constitutions do not bind in conscience absolutely, in respect of the things themselves, which are indifferent, but in regard of that contempt, and offence which might follow in the not keeping of them: contempt to our superiors, whom we ought in all lawful things to obey; offence, in grieving the conscience of our weak brethren. So that even these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospel, that is, unto edification, to the glory of God, and for avoiding of offence, do necessarily bind us in conscience, not conscience of the things themselves, which are but external, but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates, and conscience in taking heed of all just offence, sic. Caluin. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 10.11. 3 But we are not, God be thanked, driven to any such strait, that if there be need of any such Ecclesiastical laws, we should run for succour to the Pope's beggarly decretals. (And yet such Canons, as were in force amongst them, agreeable to the rules of the Gospel, we do not refuse.) But if there be want and penury of good laws, every Church hath as full authority, to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order, and quiet government thereof, not as the Pope of Rome hath over the universal Church (for that by right is none, or if it be, it is but an usurped power) but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his own Bishopric and diocese. The Protestants. WHat our sentence is of this matter, it doth partly appear by that which we have already said: that the Pope hath no power over the whole Church, and therefore can make no laws to bind the conscience or otherwise for the same, for it belongeth not to his charge. Secondly, we say, that neither he, nor any ecclesiastical government beside, can make laws of things necessary to salvation, other than those which are in Scripture contained. Thirdly, all Ecclesiastical laws made concerning external rites, and public order, do not otherwise bind the conscience, then in regard of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawful things, and for avoiding of scandal and offence: But in respect of the things commanded, such laws do not bind. Caluin. loc. praedicto. 1 Saint james saith, there is one lawegiver which is able to save and to destroy, cap. 4.12. He therefore only maketh laws to bind the conscience, that is able to save and to destroy: but that cannot the Pope do. Ergo, Caluin. argum. Bellarmine answereth, that the laws of men do bind under pain of damnation, in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience, and so judgeth them worthy of punishment. cap. 20. All this we grant, that the laws of men being good laws, do bind in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers, but not in respect of the things commanded, which in their nature are indifferent. The jesuite should have said: that God is offended not only for their disobedience, but simply for not doing the things commanded, which he durst not say: As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politic end commandeth upon some days abstinence from flesh, it is not the eating or not eating of flesh, that simply displeaseth and offendeth God, but the contempt of the law, and wilful and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate: for otherwise the use of the creature is free and indifferent. Cap 1●. lib. 4. de pontiff. 2 We will beat the jesuite with his own staff: he saith not that all laws do bind the conscience, but only just laws, in the which four conditions are required. First, that they be made for some profitable end: so are not popish laws which nourish superstition, and have no edifying, and some of them do command plain idolatry, & open impiety, as the worshipping of images, the adoration of the Mass, & such like. Secondly, saith he, they must not be contrary to God's law, but such are many of their ordinances, yea the most of them. Thirdly, they must be made by him that hath authority: therefore none of the Pope's laws bind the universal Church, for it is not subject to him. Fourthly, the form and manner of imposing such laws must be orderly: but their laws are most disordered, imposed upon the Church violently, without their consent, or any good proceeding. Thus, you see, even by their own confession, their laws cannot bind. One thing more I must needs tell them of. If they would needs have their laws to bind men in conscience, they should have made fewer of them: now they are so many, that if the breach of them were an offence of conscience, do men, what they could, they should daily make shipwreck of their conscience. It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur, a good Christian, it is an homely speech, because the matter was somewhat homely, yet he did hit the mark. Like as (saith he) crosses were set up against the walls of London, that no man should piss there; and while there were but a few, men for reverence of the crosses, would not piss against the wall: but when in every corner they set up crosses, men of necessity were feign to piss upon the wall and crosses too. So saith he, if there had been fewer laws of the Church, they would have been better kept: Fox. pag. 999. but now they are so many, that men cannot choose but break them. 3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his laws over the whole Church. Ergo, he cannot make laws to bind the whole Church. The argument followeth, for he that hath absolute power to make laws, hath also power to command obedience to the laws so made. The first is thus proved: the Pope indeed hath taken upon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches: but it was an usurped and tyrannical power, and many times resisted, and controlled. Pope Victor Anno 200. would have excommunicate the East Churches about the keeping of Easter, Fox. p. 41. but he was stayed by Irenaeus. The Council of Constance did send out excommunications against Pope Benedict. sess. 36. In the Council of Basile, Pope Eugenius cited Cardinal juliane, with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia, under great penalty: they likewise cited Eugenius under the like penalty, either to come or send to Basile. Fox. pag. 668. Pope Leo the tenth, in his fumish Antichristian Bull, excommunicated and condemned Luther. Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excommunication against him, being an adversary to Christ, in these words: according to the power and might, that the spirit of Christ, and efficacy of our faith can do in these our writings, if you shall persist still in your fury, we condemn you together with this Bull and all the decretal, and give you to sathan to the destruction of the flesh, that your spirit in the day of the Lord may be delivered: in the name, which you persecute, of jesus Christ our Lord. Fox. page 1286. Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls, and presumptuous excommunications: for it falleth out justly by them, Prover. 26. ver. 2. as the wise man saith. As the Sparrow and the Swallow by flying escape, so the curse causeless shall not come. Now seeing therefore the Pope faileth of power and strength to see his laws executed in the universal Church, it cannot be that his laws should universally bind. Lastly, let Augustine speak: he thus defineth sin, peccatum est dictum, Cont. Faustum lib. 22. cap. 27. factum, vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei, sin is any thing done, said, or coveted against the Law of GOD: therefore the transgression simply of the law of man is not sin; but as thereby also the Law of God is transgressed: Ergo simply it bindeth not the conscience: for sin only bindeth and toucheth the conscience. THE SECOND PART OF THIS Question, whether all Bishops do receive their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the Pope. The Papists. THey deny not but that the power of order, as they call it, which consisteth error 50 in the administration of the Sacraments, is equally distributed to all Bishops, and that they, as well as the Pope do receive it immediately by their consecration, of God, but the power both of external jurisdiction, which standeth upon Ecclesiastical censures, constitutions and decrees, and internal jurisdiction, which is exercised in binding and losing, is derived, say they, from the Pope to all other Bishops. 1 God took of the spirit that was in Moses, and distributed it among the seventy Elders, Numb. 11.16. that were chosen to bear the burden of government with Moses and to be his helpers: the Lord took of his spirit, not by diminishing it, but by deriving of his virtue to the rest: but the Pope is now in the room and place of Moses in the Church: Ergo, from him to the rest is this an authority derived. Answer: First, Moses example was extraordinary, he was a figure of Christ, not of the Pope, Deuteron. 18. vers. 15. The Pope might with better right stand upon Aaron's example, who was high Priest, not lay claim to Moses office, who was the Prince and Captain of the people: for the Pope, I trow, would be chief Bishop, and not Emperor too. Secondly, the meaning is not that God derived Moses spirit to the rest: but bestowed the like gift of prophesying upon them, as Moses had: surely never any mortal man had the spirit in such abundance, that it could be divided into seventy portions, and one Prophet to make many. The like phrase is used, 2. King. 2.15. Where the Prophets said, that the spirit of Eliah did rest on Elisha, that is, God endued him with an excellent spirit of prophesying, as Elias had. If they will understand this place also of deriving of spirits, how then shall that be taken in the 9 verse where Elisha prayeth, that this spirit might be doubled upon him? If his spirit were derived from Eliah, how could it be doubled upon him? How could it be multiplied and increased? how could he have more than was in the fountain or original, seeing he received all from thence? 3 What maketh this place, I pray you, for the power of external jurisdiction? Here it is said that God gave of his spirit to seventy Elders and rulers of the people, and enabled them for their office; endued them with wisdom, and knowledge, and dexterity in judging of the people: this maketh nothing for their purpose, unless they will also say, that there is a secret influence of knowledge and wisdom derived from the Pope to all other Bishops, whereby they are made able to execute their office: but (I trow) they will not say so: for Alphonsus de castro, truly saith of the Popes of Rome, constat plures eorum adeo esse illiteratos, ut grammaticam penitus ignorent: it is certain that many of them were so unlearned, that they hard and scant knew their grammar. 4 The argument followeth not from one particular country, as this was of the jews, to the universal Church: that because the seventy Elders received jurisdiction from Moses (yet that cannot be proved out of this place, for they were rulers before, and commanders of the people, the were now but inwardly furnished, and further enabled) yet it were no good reason, that therefore the Ecclesiastical Ministers over the whole Church, should receive their power from one. 5 Neither doth it follow, that because the Prince and civil Magistrate may bestow civil offices, create Dukes, Earls, Lords, constitute judges, Deputies, Lieutenants, by his sole authority, that by the same reason Ecclesiastical ministers should receive their power & office from their superiors: for although, the Church from ancient time, hath thought it good, to make some inequality and difference in Ecclesiastical offices for the peace of the Church: yet the superiors have not such a sovereignty and commanding power over the rest, as the Prince hath over his subjects. The Protestants. THat Bishops have not their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction from Rome, but do as well enjoy it by right of their consecration, election, institution, in their own precincts, circuits, provinces, cities, towns, yea, as the Pope doth in his Bishopric, and by much better right, if they be good Bishops, and lovers of the truth: thus briefly it is proved. 1 The Apostles had not their jurisdiction from Peter, but all received it indifferently from Christ: this the jesuite doth not barely acknowledge, but proveth it by argument,. against the judgement of other Papists. cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope, though he were Peter's successor: for if he were (to grant it for disputation sake) he is no more to the Bishops of the Church, than Peter was to the Apostles. If he gave not the keys to the Apostles; neither doth the Pope Saint Peter's successor, to the Bishops, the Apostles successors: for they may with as great right challenge to be the Apostles successors, as he can to be Saint Peter. Nay, the Apostles gave no power or jurisdiction to the Elders and pastors, whom they ordained: Act. 20.28. Take heed to the flock, over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or overseers: and Ephes. 4.11. He hath given some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors and teachers: so than the pastors and teachers, though ordained by the Apostles, yet had their calling and office from God and not from the Apostles, much less now can they receive their power from any, no not from the Pope, for he is no Apostle, no nor Apostolic man, having left the Apostolic faith. 2 Augustine saith, Solus Christus habet authoritatem, & praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de actu nostro judicandi. de baptis. 2.2. Only Christ hath authority (saith he) to prefer us to the government of the Church, and to judge of our doings: the pastors then of the Church have the keys of the spiritual regiment from Christ himself, not from the Pope, or any other. THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF THE temporal jurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome. THis question hath two parts: first, whether the Pope in respect of any spiritual error 51 jurisdiction, have also the chief sovereignty in temporal and civil matters, and so to be above Kings and Emperors: secondly, whether the Pope, or any Bishop, may be the chief Lord and prince over any Country, City, or Province. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Pope directly or indirectly have authority above Kings and Princes. The Papists. THe Papists of former times were not ashamed to say, that the Pope is the Lord of the whole Church: as Panormitane in the Council of Basile, Fox. page 670. Yea, Pope Innocentius the third said, writing to the Emperor of Constantinople, that as the Moon received her light from the Sun, so the imperial dignity did spring from the Pope: and that the papal dignity was seven and forty times greater than the imperial: Innoc. 3. in decretal. yea Kings and Emperors are more inferior to the Pope than lead is to gold, Gelasius distinct. 96. But our later papists ashamed of their forefather's arrogancy, in words seem to abate somewhat of their proud sentence, but in effect say the same thing: For they confess that the Emperor hath his office and calling of God, and not from the Pope: neither that the Pope directly hath any temporal jurisdiction: but indirectly he may depose Kings and princes, abrogate the laws of Emperors, and establish his own: he may take unto himself the judgement of temporal causes, and cite Kings to appear before him: yet not directly (saith the jesuite) as he is ordinary judge over the Bishops and whole Clergy, yet indirectly, as he is the chief spiritual Prince, he may do all this, if he see it necessary for the health of men's souls. And so in effect, by their popish indirect means, they give him as great authority, as ever he usurped or challenged, Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 6. 1 The Ecclesiastical and civil power do make but one body and society, as the spirit and the flesh in man: Now the Ecclesiastical power, which is as the soul and spirit, is the chief part, because it is referred to a more principal end, namely the safety and good of the soul: the other is as the flesh to the spirit, and respecteth but a temporal end, as the outward peace and prosperity of the commonwealth: Ergo, the spiritual power is chief, and may command the other. Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First, it is a very unfit and unproper similitude, to compare these two regiments to the soul and the body: for by this means, as the spirit giveth life to the body, and every part thereof, so the civil and temporal state should receive their office and calling from the Ecclesiastical, which the jesuite himself denieth, and so directly the one should rule the other: for the soul directly I trow, not indirectly moveth the body and governeth it. But if we will speak as the Scripture doth, we make all but one body: and it is the spirit of Christ, who is the head, that giveth effectual power to every part. Ephes. 4.15.16. 2 It is false that the civil magistracy only concerneth the outward and temporal commodity only: for unto Princes also is committed the chief care of religion and the worship of God: They are to see true religion advanced, yea to watch over Ecclesiastical ministers, and to charge them to look to their offices: the Prince is God's minister, for the wealth both of the souls and bodies of his subjects: And therefore Saint Paul exhorteth to pray for Kings and governors, that we may live (not only) a peaceable life, but in all godliness and honesty, 1. Timoth. 2.2. Ergo, it is part of the magistrates office, as to procure the peace of the people, so to have a care of their godly life. Wherefore it is false, as the jesuite supposeth, that the chief end of the civil government, is only outward and temporal: Ergo, his argument is nothing worth. 2 Azariah the high Priest drove Vzziah the King out of the temple, when he would have burned incense, and caused him to go out of the city and dwell apart, 2. Chron. 26. jehoiada likewise deposed Athalia, 2. King. 11. Ergo, the Pope may depose wicked and ungodly Princes. Bellarmine cap. 8. Answer: First, we deny, that there is now, or aught to be any such high Priest in the Church of God, to have the chief authority in spiritual matters, as there was in the law: for he was the type and figure of Christ, who is our high Priest, and chief Bishop. Secondly, these examples do not excuse the Pope's tyranny, who hath deposed rightful Kings and Emperors, and better than himself: as Pope Zacharie deposed Childericus the French King, and set up Pipinus: Gregory the seventh set up Rodolphus against Henricus the fourth, the Emperor. Pope Paschalis set up the son of the said Henricus against his father. But we will answer more particularly to these examples. To the first: First, it was not the sole act of Azariah the high Priest, but there were 80. Priests that joined with him beside, and they all spoke to the King: this example therefore maketh nothing for the sole authority of the Pope, who saith, that he may depose the Emperor himself, without any Council. Innocent. 4. Secondly, they did not depose Vzziah: they only withstood him according to the law of God, because he usurped the priest's office: so ought faithful Bishops and pastors even to reprove the greatest Magistrates, for the manifest contempt, and open breach of God's law: Neither did they constrain the King to go forth, before they saw the judgement of God upon him: for the text saith, they compelled him to go forth, because the Lord had smitten him, they saw the leprosy to rise up in his face, vers. 20. This therefore was the extraordinary judgement of God, and not of the high priest. Thirdly, he was not deposed from the Kingdom, though he dwelled alone: his son did execute the office only for him, and reigned after him: for being a leper, by the law he was to dwell apart, Leuit. 13.46. Here was nothing done (we see) by the sole authority of the high Priest, but they had the manifest and direct law of God, unto the which their Kings also were subject. To the second example, we answer. First, Athaliah was a tyrant and an usurper, and ought not to reign, and therefore was justly deposed. Secondly, jehoiada did it not by his own power, but assembled the Fathers and Princes of the land, 2. Chron. 22.2. He showed them the young King, and they made a covenant with him. jehoiada only gave directions, (the King being now known unto them) unto the Captains and governors. Thirdly, they had the flat word of God for that action, The King's son must reign, as the Lord hath said, concerning the sons of David, ver. 3. So when the Pope hath any such warrant from God, he may do as jehoiada did. The Protestants. THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiastical hath no manner of temporal jurisdiction either directly or indirectly over Kings, Princes, Emperors, but aught of right to be subject to them and their laws: it is thus proved. 1 By the same reason whereby the jesuite proveth, that the Pope directly hath no temporal jurisdiction, we will conclude, that neither indirectly can he have any, and so none at all. Christ, while he lived upon earth, took upon him no temporal jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly: he refused to be a King, john 6. Nay he would not be a judge in civil matters, as in dividing the inheritance, being thereto required, Luke 12.13. He paid poll money, Matth. 17. he did submit himself to the judgement of Pilate an heathen judge: therefore seeing Christ used no such temporal jurisdiction, neither can any Minister of Christ: for the servant is not above the Master: Only Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ. Fox. p. 670. 2 The Fathers of Basile do urge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2. against Panormitane, who had unadvisedly said, that the Pope was Lord of the Church. But the Apostle saith, Feed the flock of Christ, not by constraint, but willingly, not as Lords over the lords inheritance, verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise useth all forcible, constraining, and tyrannical means, killing, slaying, imprisoning, deposing those that will not obey him: Fox. pag. 786. who calleth himself chief Lord and Magistrate of the whole World. Surely this is Antichrist, and not the Minister of Christ, or successor of Saint Peter, whose counsel he refuseth to follow and obey. 3 Let but the stories of former times be searched: there we shall find how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaved themselves towards Kings, and Emperors: Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to do penance for Beckets' death, and to be displed of the Monks. Innocent the third caused King john to kiss the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subject. Alexander the third did tread upon Emperor Frederick his neck. Pope Innocent spoiled Frederick the second of his Empire, caused him to be poisoned, and his son Conradus to be beheaded: and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order, Fox. p. 787. Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his son. It is not good, they say, to put a sword into a mad man's hand: and think you not, that these Popes used the temporal sword very discreetly, which they thus usurped, making fools and slaves of Emperors, as Pope Adriane did, that rebuked Frederick the first, because he held his stirrup on the wrong side, and did excommunicate him, for setting his name before the Popes in writing? Th● very insolent, devilish, and Antichristian practice of this their temporal power, showeth from what original it cometh, even from the father of pride. Lastly, Augustine saith, writing upon those words, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Si quis putat, quia Christanus est, non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum, aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum, eyes, qui haec curant potestatibus; in magno errore est. If any man think, because he is a Christian, that he is not bound to pay tribute and tax, and yield due honour to the temporal powers (for of such Augustine speaketh) he is in a great error. If all than are subject to the temporal magistrate, that are Christians, than all Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons, yea the Pope himself, if he be a Christian. Ergo, the Emperor is not subject to him. THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, concerning Saint Peter's patrimony, whether the Pope may be a temporal Prince. The Papists. THey say that it is not against the word of God, that the Pope should be error 52 both a temporal and Ecclesiastical Prince, Bellarm. lib. 5. c. 9 and that both the sword of spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction do belong unto him: and that he is the right heir of Saint Peter's patrimony: to him belongeth as chief Lord the Imperial city of Rome, the palace of Laterane, Fox. p. 793. Capua also and Apulia are his. distinct. 96. Constantin. 1 Moses (saith the jesuite) was both priest, and Prince: so was Heli 1. Sam. 4. He judged Israel forty years: so were also the Macchabees, judas, jonathan, Simon: yea Melchisedech long before Moses, was Priest and King: Ergo the Pope is lawfully both chief Bishop, and chief Prince also, and Lord of that which he now possesseth. Bellarmine cap. 9 Ans. Concerning Melchisedech. Who knoweth not, that he being King and Priest, was a lively figure of our Saviour Christ's spiritual Kingdom and Priesthood? Heb. 7. And as yet the offices of the spiritual and temporal government were not distinguished: for all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, & the rest were sacrificers, therefore we cannot borrow any examples from them for this matter. Moses also did offer sacrifice to God, and was chief judge both in spiritual and temporal affairs unto the people, until such time, as when by God's commandment, Levit 8.9. Aaron was chosen to the priesthood, unto whom the charge of sacrifices and unto his sons was committed: so Moses remained still Prince of the people, whom josua succeeded, and Aaron was invested to the priesthood, and so the offices were distinct: this example therefore of Moses is extraordinary, and proveth not. Concerning the time when Ely judged Israel, which was in the days of the judges, we must understand, that the government of Israel was very dissolute, and men were left to themselves to do almost what themselves listed: as jud. 17. we read that Micah set up an Idol in his house, and the reason is rendered, there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes. Likewise the tribe of Dan offered violence to Micah, and rob him, jud. 18. For there was no King in Israel, vers. 1. The Levites wife was most shamefully abused by the Gibeonites, for there was no King, chap. 19.1. The men of Benjamin took them wives by force: for they had no King, chap. 21.25. So you see that both religion was corrupted, and the manners of the people grew to be outrageous; and all because there was no perfect distinct government, there was no King in Israel. In Elie his time, the word of God was precious, 1. Sam. 3.1. Great was the ignorance of the whole land: the licentiousness also of his sons was a great offence to all Israel, and brought a great decay of godliness with it, 1. Sam. 2.17.23. Yea they caused the people through their evil example to sin, verse. 24. Wherefore Elie his house was judged of GOD for his remissness in government, in not correcting his sons, chapter 3.13. And he that cannot rule his own house, how should he care for the Church, 1. Timoth. 3.5? It cannot now be proved by the example of Elie, that the civil government was annexed to the priesthood by the lords appointment: but it is rather to be ascribed to the corruption of those times: for having no King nor Captain over them, they were driven of necessity to come to the high Priest, unto whom the judgement of many matters was committed by the law of God, Deuter. 17.8. Levit. 13.2. But the priesthood, and the civil magistracy were two distinct things always from the time of the law established. It is then no good argument, which is drawn from the practice and example of those corrupt times: And yet we say not, that these offices were so distinct, but that the Lord might raise up some extraordinary prophet, as he did Samuel, who to restore justice and religion decayed, might for a time both judge the people and offer sacrifice, as we see he did. As for the examples of the Maccabees, they move us not, you must bring better scripture for your purpose: the authority of those books bind us not: and again we see they did contrary to the law, in taking upon them both offices: for the priesthood was annexed to the posterity of Aaron for ever, Numb. 3.10. And the sceptre was not to departed from juda till Christ came, Genes. 49.10. As the Lord also had promised to David, that the Kingdom should remain in his seed. 2. Chron. 22.3. 2 Constantine the great gave unto the Pope the chief government of the City of Rome, and other Lordships in Italy, yea the sovereignty over the West parts: why then is it not lawful for him to enjoy his gift? Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 9 Ans. First, the donation of Constantine seemeth to be forged: for if Constantine resigned to Silvester the political dominion of the west parts, how could he then have distributed his Empire amongst his sons, as the West part to one, the East to the second, the middle part to the third? Again, the donation saith, that Constantine was baptized at Rome by Silvester before the battle against Maximinus, and that then the patrimony was given: but it is certain by stories that he was baptized at Nicomedia, by Eusebius Bishop there, in the 31. year of his reign: wherefore it seemeth to be a forged and devised thing. plur. apud. Fox. pag. 105. 2 Aeneas silvius saith, that Mathilda, a noble Duchess in Italy, Fox. protesta. ad Angl. gave those lands to the Pope, which are called S. Peter's patrimony: how then can it be true, that they were given by Constantine? Thirdly, the popish doctors and Canonists confess, that Constantine's grant is not so much to be counted a donation, as a restitution of that which tyrannously was taken from him: but he hath his power spiritual and temporal immediately from Christ: you see then that they themselves make no great reckoning of Constantine's donation. Antoni. summa, maior. 3. part. 4 Yet if Constantinus that good Emperor had been so minded, Fox. p. 791.793. to have bestowed the imperial dignity upon the bishop of Rome: there remaineth a great question, whether he ought to have accepted of it or not; nay he should have refused it: for the temporal sword belongeth not to spiritual governors: At the least it had been a charitable part, not to have suffered the Emperor to disinherit his own sons, for to enrich the See of Rome: as Augustine very well saith, Qui vult, exhaeredato filio, ecclesiam haeredem facere, quaerat alterum, qui suscipiat, non Augustinum, immo deo propitio nullum inveniat. Ad Frat. in e●emo. ser. 52. He that would make the Church his heir, and defeat his own children, let him seek some body else, to accept of his gift: surely Augustine will not, nor I trust any honest man beside. The Protestants. FIrst we willingly grant, that the Church may enjoy those temporal possessions, which have been of old granted unto it for the better maintenance thereof, so they be not abused to riot and excess: as the Levites beside their tithes, had their cities and fields, Numb. 35. Secondly, the judgement of Ecclesiastical matters doth of right appertain to the Church, as Amariah the Priest was the chief in all matters of the Lord, 2. Chron. 19.11. Thirdly, we do not utterly exclude spiritual persons from temporal causes: but as the civil Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiastical laws, so spiritual persons ought not to be strangers from the civil state; being meet men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withal, and conferred with, and to be joined in Council with the Magistrate in difficult matters: as we read, Deuter. 17.8. How the high Priest, and chief judge, did join in mutual help and assistance. But that any spiritual person may be a temporal prince, and have the chief government of both states, and handle both sword, we say it is contrary to the word of God: for in these three points standeth chief the office of the prince, in making and ordaining civil laws, in having power of life and death, in proclaiming of war, and waging of battle: with none of these aught Ecclesiastical persons to deal, as we will now show in order. 1 Concerning the making of civil laws and statutes, though the Ecclesiastical body, according to the ancient custom of this land, have their suffrage and voice, and do give consent: yet the chief stroke, in allowing, confirming, and enacting of such laws is in the prince, and cannot agree or be matched with any spiritual office. Saint Paul saith, Who is sufficient for these things? that is, for the work of the ministery, 2. Cor. 2.16. If therefore spiritual persons suffice not to execute to the full, their spiritual charge, though they should bend all their study and care that way, much more insufficient shall they be, if they be entangled in temporal affairs, for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient. Again (saith he) no man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, 2. Timoth. 2.4. By affairs seculare here are not only understood (as the jesuite imagineth) merchandise, traffic, buying, selling, and such like, but the care and charge also of civil government, of making laws and orders for the civil state, which must needs be a great let to the spiritual business, and require greater study and labour, than the other base works which are named. To this Augustine agreeth: Quo iure (saith he) defends villas? unde quisque possidet quod habet? jure humano, iure imperatorum: quare? quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores & reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano. tract. in Ihoann. 6. By what law dost thou defend thy possessions? by the law of man, the law of the Emperors: for these human laws, by God's ordinance are given unto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world. See then, civil laws, and human constitutions are given and made, not by the Pope, Priest, or any other Prelate, but only by Kings and Princes, and the civil magistrates. 2 It were a monstrous & an unnatural thing, that any Ecclesiastical governor should have power of life & death: for he hath no better right to the civil sword, than the prince to the Ecclesiastical sword: and if it be not lawful for the civil Magistrate to excommunicate, which is as the spiritual sword, and the greatest censure of the Church, no more is it to be suffered, that by the authority or commandment of any Ecclesiastical person, any man should be put to death. The high Priest was not to deal with matters of blood, which touched the life: but the offenders were brought to the gates of the city, where the magistrates sat. Deuter. 17.5. Not to the temple, where the priest ministered. Nay, we see, that in the most corrupt times of the jewish commonwealth, namely, when they put our blessed Saviour to death, the priests did not challenge any such power: It is not lawful (say they) for us, to put any to death: john 18.31. But that power was in the temporal Magistrate, as Pilate said to Christ, Knowest thou not, that I have power to crucify thee, and power to lose thee? joh. 19.10. Ergo, the Pope cannot be a temporal prince, to have power of life and death. 3 If the Pope be a temporal prince, than he may wage battle, which although the jesuite dare not plainly affirm, yet it followeth necessarily upon his assertion: for it is lawful for any temporal prince to make war: And it hath been the common practice of Popes and popish prelate's so to do. There were great & bitter battles fought between Vrbane the sixth, and the Antipope Clement, in the which on the one side there were 5000. slain. Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lusty young blood, Bishop of Norwich, was the Pope's Captain general in France: where he sacked the town of Gravenidge, Fox. pag. 446. and put man, woman and child to the sword. So Pope julius cast his keys into the River Tiber, and took himself to his sword: waged many battles, and at the last was encountered withal by Lewes the French King, upon Easter day: where there was of his army slain, to the number of 16000 But these warlike affairs of the Pope misliked the Papists themselves: for he was therefore condemned in the Council of Turone in France, Fox. p. 798. Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes do follow the rule of Christ, who commanded Peter to put up his sword into his sheath: If it were not lawful for Peter to strike with the sword, how is it lawful for the Popes, that, I am sure, dare not challenge more to themselves, than was lawful for Peter? Thus we see how absurd a thing it is, that the Pope should be a temporal Prince. THE NINTH QUESTION OF THE Prerogatives of the Pope. BEside these privileges and immunities of the See of Rome, which hitherto we have spoken of both in spiritual and temporal matters, there are other prerogatives, which have been in times past given to the Bishops of Rome, most blasphemous & wicked, which the Papists of this age are ashamed of, and therefore pass them over with silence: for Bellarmine saith nothing of them: We will therefore spare our labour in confuting of them, they are so gross and absurd, but only bring them forth, that the godly reader may understand the abomination of the whore of Babylon. There are three monstrous and shameful prerogatives, which the Canonists ascribed to the Pope in times past: and they are these, his power dispensative, his power exemptive, his power transcendent, so we will call them at this time. error 53 First, his prerogative in dispensing was wonderful: it would offend a Christian ear, to hear what his gross Canonists are nothing ashamed to say, Papa potest dispensare contra ius divinum, jewel. p. 59 Defence. Apolog. Fox. p. 785. the Pope may dispense against the Law of God, contra ius naturae, against the Law of nature: contra Apostolum, against the Apostle, contra nowm testamentum, against the new Testament: Nay, Papa potest dispensare de omnibus praeceptis veteris & novi testamenti: the Pope may dispense with all the Commandments both of the old and new law. What intolerable blasphemies are here? The practices also of Popes are agreeable hereunto: for did not the Court of Rome dispense with King Henry the eights marriage with his brother's wife? but that ungodly dispensation at the last was overthrown: and it was well concluded by act of Parliament: Anno. 1533. That no man had authority to dispense with God's laws. error 54 2 Concerning his power exemptive: the Pope (say they) is not bound to any law: No man is to judge or accuse him of any crime, either of adultery, murder, simony, or such like. If he fall into adultery, or homicide, he cannot be accused, Fox. p. 785. artic. 188. but rather excused, by the murders of Samson, thefts of the Hebrues, the adultery of jacob. As Oziah was stricken for putting his hand to the Ark inclining, no more must subjects rebuke their Prelates going awry: Fox. p. 788. artic. 130. by the inclination of the Ark, the fall of prelate's is understood. This generally is the opinion of the Canonists: but the jesuits do hold the contrary, that it is lawful, even for an inferior priest to rebuke the Pope. Rhemist. Annot. in 2. Galath. sect. 8. Wherefore, seeing they confute themselves, they need not any other refutation. error 55 3 Concerning the third power, which we call Transcendent: One saith, that, Antonius in Sum. part. 3. non minor honor Papae debetur, quàm Angelis, that there is no less honour due to the Pope, than to Angels. Another saith: Papatus est summa virtus creata, The Popedom is the highest power, that was created of God, above Angels, or Archangels. Again, those words of the Psalm, thou hast put all things under his foot, john de Parijs. as sheep and oxen, fowls of the air, fishes of the sea: they thus blasphemously apply to the Pope, by sheep and oxen understanding men living upon the earth: Antonius Sum. maior par. 3. dist. 22. by the fowls of the air, the Angels in Heaven, whom they say, the Pope may command; by the fishes, the souls in purgatory: Over all these the Pope, say they, hath absolute power, who may, if it please him, release all purgatory at once. What horrible blasphemies are here? Yet our Rhemists and other jesuits are somewhat more modest, which confess that the Pope is but Christ's Vicar in the regiment of that part which is on the earth. Annotat. 1. Ephesians sect. 5. Seeing then they confute themselves, we will not further travail herein, but proceed. THE TENTH QUESTION, CONCERNING Antichrist, and whether the Pope be that great adversary unto Christ. THis question is divided into many parts. First, whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man. Secondly, of the time of his coming and continuing. Thirdly, of his name. Fourthly, of what nation or kindred he shall come. Fiftly, where his place and seat shall be. Sixtly, of his Doctrine and manners. seventhly, of his miracles. Eightly, of his Kingdom and wars. Ninthly, whether the Pope be the very Antichrist. This then is a most famous question, and worthy thoroughly to be discussed, every point therefore must be handled in order. The Papists. THey hold that Antichrist, whose coming is foretold in the Scripture, shall error 56 be one particular man, not a whole body, tyranny, or Kingdom, as the truth is, Bellarm. cap. 2. lib. 3. 1 They urge the words of our Saviour, john 5.43. I come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not, if another come in his own name, him will ye receive. 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 Kingdom to a Kingdom, or sect unto 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 chief doctor and teacher, that came in the name of his Father, yet all true preachers beside, do come in the same name: for so our Saviour saith of his Apostles, He that receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me Matth. 10.40. Therefore, he that receiveth the Apostles, receciveth God: they also then do come in the name of Christ: and so Christ and all the faithful make but one, john 17.21. 2 Neither doth Christ here speak of one special enemy, but of all false prophets, for it is not unusual in the Scripture, in the singular number to express a multitude being of the same kind, as john 10.11.12. There is a comparison between Christ the true shepherd, and the hireling: where, by the name of hireling, all false shepherds and spiritual thieves are understood, 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 proof is out of 1. john 2.18. the Antichrist shall come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greek article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expresseth some singular notable person. Bellarmine ibid. Ans. It is false. The Greek article doth not always in scripture assign some particular person: as Matth. 4.4. Man shall not live by bread only: the Greek text hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man, and yet is it understood not of any one man, but of all in general, so 2. Tim. 2.17. The man of God, that is, every faithful 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 down, Ergo, but one man. Bellar. ibid. Rhemens.. 2. Thes. 2. sect. 8. Ans. The name here mystically described, which shall contain 666. in number, for so the Greek letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ do signify being numbered, doth not express any particular name of one man, but rather of the whole society and body of Antichrist: for it is said to be the number of the beast. Now by the beast is understood the Roman Empire, the name whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Latinus, which letters do arise in computation to the whole number of, 666. And this name Irenaeus thinketh to agree best to this place. Further, seeing the Rhemists themselves by the best do understand the universal company of the wicked, revel. 13. ve. 1. And this is the name or number of the beast: it must be understood, by their own confession, of a company and congregation, and not of one singular person. The Protestants. THat Antichrist, which is interpreted an adversary, or against Christ, shall not be one man (as the Papists imagine, that the Popes might be disburdened and discharged of this name, who are many) but that it is a whole body, company and synagogue, and a succession of heretics, we do thus prove it. Argument. Bezae. 1 The mystery of iniquity wrought in Paul's time, then was there a way in preparing for Antichrist. 2. Thes. 2. But it is unpossible for one man to continue from Paul's time to the end of the world, Ergo, Antichrist is not one man but a succession of heretics. Bellarmine answereth: if the mystery of iniquity began in Paul's time, that is, the kingdom of Antichrist; and you will needs make Rome the seat of Antichrist: belike S. Paul and S. Peter were the Antichrists, for there were no Bishops of Rome beside at that time. Ans. First, that Antichrist begun then to work even in Rome it cannot be denied, seeing the Papists confess, that Simon Magus first broached his heresy there, and that Peter calleth Rome Babylon. It is not necessary, that the mystery of iniquity should so soon creep into the very chair of the Pastors and Bishops: that should come to pass in the full revelation of Antichrist: It is sufficient that it wrought closely amongst the false apostles: wherefore the jesuits objection concerning Peter and Paul, is ridiculous. Fulk. Anno. 2. Thes. 2. sect. 9 2 S. Paul saith, that there must come a departing or apostasy & general falling from the faith: for that an apostasy signifieth a relinquishing of the faith, not a departure from the Roman Empire. Now this general falling away from the faith cannot be accomplished in one man, but it showeth a whole body or company, whereof Antichrist is the head, one man of sin succeeding another by succession: and this apostasy cannot be wrought at one time, but it shall come to pass in several ages: for how is it possible, that at once such a general apostasy should be? Ergo, Antichrist shall not be one particular man, Argum. calvini. Neither can the jesuite thus shift off the argument, to say, that this general apostasy is but a preparation to the kingdom of Antichrist, not that he shall then be presently come: for S. Paul joineth both these together: There must come a departing first, that the man of sin be disclosed, vers. 3. So that this very apostasy and departing shall be a disclosing and manifest declaration of Antichrist. 3 john 3.7. The Apostle saith: Many deceivers are come into the world, which confess not that jesus Christ is come in the flesh: the same is the deceiver and the Antichrist: Mark then, one deceiver is many deceivers: one Antichrist many Antichrists, 1. john 2.18. Ergo, Antichrist shall not be one man, but many, Argument. Ful. annot. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8. 4 Augustine showeth, how that in his time this place of S. Paul was not expounded of any one man, but of a whole body: Nonnulli non ipsum principent, sed universum quodammodo corpus eius, De civitat. dei 20.19. simul cum suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt: Some (saith he) do take Antichrist not for the head alone, but for the whole body and multitude together with their prince. And their conjecture is this: because these words, vers. 7. He which withholdeth, are understood of the Empire & Emperors of Rome, which were many: so the man of sin, which is described as in the person of one, may fitly be understood of a succession of many. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER antichrist be yet come, and how long he shall continue. The Papists. THe Romish jesuits do hold that Antichrist is not yet come, neither can they tell when he shall come: But this they say boldly, that Henoch and Elias, error 57 who live all this while in Paradise, shall come immediately before Antichrist, and that Antichrist, when he is come, shall reign but three years and an half, and then shall the world end, Bellarm. cap. 4. lib. 3. de pontiff. Rhemist. 11. Apocal. sect. 2.4. 1 The Roman Empire must utterly be destroyed & laid waist before Antichrist come: as S. Paul saith, That which withholdeth must first be taken away, 2. Thess. 2.7. that is, the Roman Empire. But the Empire yet remaineth: for the Emperor is known by name, and there are also prince electors of the Empire: Ergo, Antichrist is not yet come, Bellarm. cap. 5. Answer: It is true that the Roman Empire, while it retained and kept the ancient dignity, majesty and power thereof, was an hindrance and let to the tyranny of Antichrist, but when it began to decay, than Antichrist set in his foot. First, it was not necessary therefore that the Empire should utterly be extinguished, but so much only taken away, namely the ancient honour and imperial majesty thereof, as hindered Antichrist, and so we find, that the Roman Empire was more than half decayed, when Antichrist crept into Rome. Secondly, the imperial power must in some sort be restored by Antichrist: for the Pope usurped the same authority which the Emperors had, yea greater: for the whore is described sitting upon the beast, Apocal. 17. which is the Empire: and therefore it is said, vers. 8. The beast that was, and is not, and yet is: for the ancient Empire both is, and is not: It is, because the power thereof is translated to the Pope: it is not, that is, not in that kingly manner, as it was in times past. Apocal. 13.12. The beast that rose out of the earth with two horns like a lamb, did all that the first beast could do before him: that is, the power of the Empire was in the Pope. Thirdly, Apocal. 13.15. It is said, that the image of the beast remained, & that the other beast gave a spirit unto the image of the beast: So is it at this day, the name and image of the Empire remaineth, but the majesty and power is gone: And who giveth life to the image but the Pope? he confirmeth and ratifieth the election of the Emperor. Wherefore, this rather is an argument that Antichrist is already come, because nothing but the image of the beast remaineth. 2 Antichrist shall reign three years and an half: but if he were already come, he must needs have reigned divers hundred years already, Bellarmin. cap. 8. They prove this reign of Antichrist for this short season, out of those places of Daniel 7.25. A time, times, and half a time: and Apocal. 12.14. Also it is described by days 1260. days, and by months 11.2. two and forty months: which all come to one reckoning, and make three years and an half. Answer: First, the time is also set down by the name of three days and an half, Apocal. 11.11. How then is it likely, that 1260. days and three days and an half, should signify the same time? Secondly, with much better sense are these times applied by our learned and painful countryman Master Fox, to the great persecution under the Emperors, which continued 294. years, which time is mystically signified by 42. months, taking every month for a sabbath of years. And the rest of the numbers agree hereunto: for 1260. days make three years and an half, that is, months 42: and three days and an half make hours 42. Fox. p. 101. So taking every hour in the days, and every month in the years for a sabbath of years, there ariseth 294. years, which was the just time of the persecution from the death of john Baptist, unto the end of Licinius the tyrant & persecutor. This account, I say, better agreeth with the truth of history, than their imagined computation. Thirdly, if it should be taken, as they expound it, for so short a time, then very little of the prophecy in the Apocalyps is yet fulfilled, which we doubt not but is most accomplished, as it may appear in comparing the visions revealed in that book together. And again, there is no prophecy beside this of 42. months, which can be applied to the great persecution in the Primitive Church: wherefore it is not like that the Lord would leave his Church, without some comfort, in forewarning them of those great troubles which immediately ensued. But if these prophecies, which are wrested by the Papists, did no● foretell of those persecutions, then are they utterly forgotten in that book: which is not like, it being the greatest trial that ever the Church had. 4 We say then, that we are not curiously to search into times and seasons, which the Lord hath not revealed: Only this we learn, that the time of affliction being set down by days and months, the faithful should hereby be comforted, knowing that the time of their trouble is limited of God, and is but short in respect of the kingdom of Christ. 2 The Lord saith, Math. 24. that those days shall be shortened, lest no flesh should be saved. But how can the time be short, if it should last some hundreds, or a thousand of years? Bellarmin. cap. 8. Rhemist. annot. Matth. 24. sect. 6. Answer: First, that place vers. 22. is properly understood of the calamity of the jews, which if it had continued any longer, the nation of the jews had been utterly destroyed. Secondly, yet notwithstanding the reign of Antichrist is short in respect of the eternal kingdom of Christ: yea the whole time from his ascension until his coming again, is counted but short, Apocal. 22.20. I come quickly: and S. Peter saith, That a thousand years before God is as one day, and one day as a thousand years, 2. Pet. 3. 3 Christ preached but three years and an half, therefore Antichrist shallbe suffered to preach no longer. Answer: First, yet Christ was thirty years old when he began to preach, and showed himself before, though not so openly, as when he was twelve year old he disputed with the Doctors in the temple: he was also acknowledged for the Messiah in his nativity. If Antichrist then must in this respect be correspondent to Christ, he must also be known to be thirty years upon earth, before he be fully manifested. Secondly, though Christ himself preached no longer, yet he sent his Apostles, who preached many years after: we do not therefore oppose the person of Antichrist, whom we deny to be a singular man, to Christ, but the kingdom of the one to the other. Now by their own reason, it followeth, that because the kingdom of Christ endured many years, and yet doth, that therefore antichrist's kingdom must likewise. Other demonstrations the jesuite hath to prove that Antichrist is not yet come: as because the Gospel is not yet preached to all the world, cap. 4. Bellar. Helias and Henoch are not yet come, who are certainly looked for, cap. 6. There shall be a most grievous and terrible persecution under Antichrist, which is not yet past, cap. 7. But these arguments shall be answered in another place towards the end of this work, when we come to speak of the appearing of Christ to judgement. The Protestants. THat Antichrist shall reign but three years and an half, we take it for a mere fable, and a very popish dream: whereas on the contrary side, we are able to show, both that Antichrist is already come, and hath tyrannised in the world these many years. 1 We will make it plain by demonstration, that Antichrist hath been in the world many years ago, by the prophetical places of scripture. First, it is said, the number of Antichrist is 666. Apocal. 13.18. So, anno. 606. or thereabout, Boniface the 3. obtained of Phocas the Emperor to be called universal Bishop. Thus saith Illyricus, Chytraeus. Also beginning at the year of the Lord 97. at which time john wrote the Apocalyps, and counting 666. years, we shall come to the time of Pipinus, whom the Pope made King of France, and he again much enlarged the jurisdiction and authority of the Pope. And yet more evidently, about the year of the Lord 666. the Latin service was commanded to be used in all countries subject to the See of Rome, by Pope Vitalianus: and about the same time, Constantius the Emperor removed the ancient monuments of the Empire to Constantinople, and left the city to the Pope's pleasure, Fulk. annot. in 13. Revel. sect. 10. Another prophecy we have, revel. 20.3. that after one 1000 years Satan must be let lose. Even so, a thousand years after Christ, Pope Silvester a great conjuror, having made a compact with the Devil, obtained the Papacy, and not long after him came in Gregory the 7. a great Sorcerer also and Necromancer, sic Lutherus. But because it is not to be thought, that Satan was bound during that great and long persecution under the Roman Emperors, we must begin the account of the 1000 years, from the end of the persecution, which continued 294. years: unto that add a thousand, so have we the year of our Lord 1294. About which year Boniface the 8. made the sixth book of the Decretals, confirmed the orders of Friars, and gave them great freedoms: with this number agreeth Daniel his 1290. days, Dan. 12. 1●. Also somewhat before this time, anno 1260. the orders of Dominicke and Franciscane Friars began first to be set up by Honorius the 3. and Gregory the 9 and so have we the 1260. days, which are set down, Apocal. 12. plura apud Fox. pag. 398. 2 If Antichrist should reign but three years and an half, as our adversaries teach, and then immediately that time being expired, the world should end: than it is possible to assign the time of our Lord Christ his coming to judgement, so soon as Antichrist is revealed. But the Gospel saith, that of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels in heaven, Math. 24.36. yet these good fellows take upon them to be wiser than the Angels: for they dare set down the very day of Christ's coming: which shall be, as Bellarmine presumptuously imagineth, just 45. days after the destruction of Antichrist. And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11. where mention is made of 1290. days, that is, as he fond interpreteth, three years and an half, the just time of antichrist's reign: But blessed is he that cometh (saith the Prophet) to 1335. days: that is, saith Bellarmine, to 45. days after the destruction of Antichrist, and then Christ cometh, cap. 9 What intolerable boldness and presumption is this, contrary to the saying of Christ, to attempt to declare the very hour of his coming? Again: the prophecy of Daniel had no such meaning: for he only speaketh of the afflictions of the Church, before the coming of Christ, as john prophesieth of the troubles that came after. Daniel therefore in that place receiveth instructions concerning the cruel persecution of the jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, the beginning, and the end thereof: There are three times revealed unto him. The first is of a time, two times, and half a time, or rather the dividing of time, or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew, a part or parcel of times: Dan. 7.25. so long should the temple be defiled, and the abomination set up in the temple, that is, three years and certain days: And so it came to pass, for this desolation began in the temple the 145. year of the reign of the Greeks', the fifteen day of the month Casleu. 1. Macchab. 1.57. when Antiochus caused the daily sacrifice to cease, and incense to be burnt to Idols: And just three years and ten days after, which is to be reckoned for the odd parcel of times, Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu, they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the law, 1. Macchab. 4.52. The second time revealed, is of a 1290. days, Dan. 12.11. which maketh three years, seven months and odd days: which is the time, counting from the desolation, when as the sacrifices should be restored, and confirmed by the Kings grant, and Letters Patents: which accordingly came to pass, ann. 148. the fifteenth of the month Xanthicus, which was the last month but one, as it is recorded, 2. Macchab. 11.33. The third time is described by days, 1335. Dan. 12.12. Blessed is he that should live to see that time: namely, when the Church of the jews should fully be delivered by the death of Antiochus, which was in the beginning of the next year, which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16. Thus we see these times were fully accomplished under the tyranny of Antiochus: wherefore these prophecies being once fulfilled, they cannot be drawn to signify any other time, but by way of similitude and comparison. Neither is that any thing worth, which the jesuite objecteth out of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2.8. Then shall the wicked man be revealed, whom Christ shall consume with the spirit of his mouth: As though presently after the revelation 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 coming of Christ to his second, is in the scripture called novissima hora, the last times, 1. joh. 2.18. And therefore Antichrist, at what time soever he is revealed after the ascension of Christ, he cometh in the last times: whose utter ruin and destruction shall be reserved for the glorious appearing of Christ, as the Apostle there speaketh. 3 Whereas the scripture saith, that Satan must be bound for a thousand years, and after let lose again, Apocal. 20.2: And it is plain that the thousand years since Christ are expired more than five hundred years ago: It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is already come: for he must be revealed with the losing of Satan. Our adversaries have nothing to answer but this, that by this 1000 years, a certain time is not meant, but the whole space during the time of the new Testament, till the coming of Antichrist, Rhemist. revel. 20. sect. 1. To whom we answer, that by the same reason, neither shall their 42. months show any certain time, but the whole space so long as Antichrist shall reign: and this number of months, as of days, weeks, hours, the scripture every where taketh mystically in prophecies: but when thousands, or hundred years are mentioned, they are always taken literally: as Isay. 7.8. it is prophesied, that Ephraim, that is, Israel, should utterly cease to be a people within 65. years, which even so came to pass, counting from the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz King of juda, to the 25. year of Manasses, when the remnant of Israel was carried away. THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE NAME, character and sign of Antichrist. The Papists. THey stoutly affirm, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, consequently error 58 they also hold, that he shall have a certain name, as Christ is called jesus, so Antichrist must also have a proper name: but what that name shall be, no man can tell, until he come: but it shall consist of certain letters, that in number make six hundred sixty six, 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 have a certain name, which containeth that number, Bellarm. ibid. Answer: First, it is the number of the beast, and yet of a man: Ergo, it cannot be the name of any one man: for by the beast, the jesuits themselves understand a company or multitude, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a company or succession of men, and such is the name Latinus, as afterward we will show. Secondly, it must be a name by number, showing the time, not an idle number signifying nothing; the time of his coming is set down to be 666: But the name of their Antichrist cannot show any such time, seeing there are years more than twice 666. gone already, and yet they say, their Antichrist is not yet come. 2 Antichrist shall have a name, as Christ had, but it is not necessary to be known, otherwise than Christ his name was: ι. 10. η. 8. σ. 200. ο. 70. υ. 400. ς. 200. 888. which was described by Sibil by the number of 888. as antichrist's is by 666. yet was not his name, jesus, perfectly known before his coming, neither is it necessary that Antichrists should before that time. jesus, in Greek letters thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10. Answer: First, you must prove Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was, and then strive for his name. Secondly, you do evil to match Sibyls prophecy, and john's revelation together, as though her conjecture of the name of Christ, by the number 888. were of like authority with john's prophecy, of 666. Thirdly, it is false, that the name, jesus, was only by Sibil signified by these numbers: for Augustine allegeth certain verses of Sibil, which began with the letters of Christ's name in order one after another: so that the first letters of the verses showed this title or name: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: jesus Christus filius Dei salvator: And the Latin verses translated out of the Greek, do almost keep the same order of letters, August. count judaeos pagan. cap. 16. We see then that Sibil foretold the very name, jesus Christ, and did not only decipher it by numbers. Why might not antichrist's name as well be showed? The Protestants. WE affirm by warrant of scripture, that as it is a mere fable, that Antichrist shall be one singular man; so of the like truth is it, that he shall be known by some notorious name: neither can any such thing be gathered, Apocal. 13.18. 1 If there should come such a notorious wicked person into the world, who only should deserve to be called Antichrist, it is not unlike, but that the spirit of God, speaking of his name, both could & would also have expressed it: As josias was described by name, 1. King. 13.20 and Cyrus, Isai. 44.28.45.1. long before either of them came into the world: And why, I pray you, might not this prophetical Evangelist, have named Antichrist, as well as Sibilla foretold the name of our Saviour jesus Christ? Again, Christ's names were prophesied of and known before: One name of his is to be called a Nazarite, so the people call him, Math. 2●. 11. a prophet of Nazareth. This name the Prophet hath, Isay. 11.1. he calleth him, Netser, in Hebrew it signifieth a branch. Another name of his, is King of Israel, john 12.23. prophesied of by Zachar. 9.9. Also he was called the son of David, Math. 21.9. And Isay saith, he shall spring out of the root of jesse. 11.1. Further, he was known by the name Messiah, or Christ, before he came, joh. 4. the woman of Samaria said, I know well that Messiah shall come, which is called Christ, vers. 25. This name was revealed to Daniel, 9.25. he is called Messiah, the prince. But will our adversaries say, his name jesus was not known before his coming? yes, even that name also hath some evidence out of the Prophets: for jesus or jesua, is all one, and signifieth a Saviour: of the which name we read Zachar. 3. where mention is made of jeshua the high Priest, who was a type of our Saviour Christ, and bore his name, for vers. 5. a Diadem is set upon his head: which must needs be understood of jesus Christ, our high Priest. Again, he is called Hosanna, john 12.13. which signifieth the same that jesus, and both are derived from the same root: translated, Save us. Which name we find in the 118. Psal. vers. 25. Lastly, if the name jesus Christ were revealed to Sibilla a heathen prophetess, how can it be, that the Prophets of God were ignorant of it? Therefore by their own argument, seeing Christ's names were known before his coming, why should not Antichrists in like manner, if he should be some one singular notorious man? 2 We can bring forth a name, which in all respects agreeth with that description, Apocal. 13.18. which is a name both of a man and of the beast, that is, of a company, or succession of men, which showeth the time of antichrist's birth, namely, the year 666. which also doth fitly agree with the manners and properties of Antichrist: and that is the name Latinus, which in Greek letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showeth in account, the number 666. and so doth the name of Rome in Hebrew— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, romiijth. And, ecclesia Italica, λ. 30. α. 1. τ. 300. ε. 5. ι. 10. ν. 50. ο. 70. ς. 200. 666. ר. 200. ו. 6. מ. 40. י. 10. י. 10. ת. 400. 666. in Greek letters do make the same number. We see then, that all things do well agree to this name: first, that is signifieth the whole Latin Church or Empire, & so is the name of the beast. Secondly, it showeth the time 666. about which year Pope Vitalianus composed the Latin Service, and enjoined all Nations to use no other. Thirdly, it properly agreeth with the Antichristian practice of Rome; which is called the Latin Church. And contrary to S. Paul's rule they have brought an unknown tongue which edifieth not, into the service of God: yea they prefer it before the Greek and Hebrew, making the Latin translation of the scriptures only authentical, as it was concluded in their Tridentine chapter. And they do so much extol their Latin text, as the setter forth of the Complutense edition is not ashamed in his preface to write, that he hath placed the Latin text between the Hebrew and the Greek, as Christ between the two thieves, Fulk. Apocal. 13. sect. 10. What Church then in the whole world but theirs, can be called the Latin Church? Fourthly, it also maketh much for us, that we have a consent of names, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & in Hebrew Romiijth, do all make the same number, and do note the Latin, Roman, or Italian Church. But they object: First that Latinus maketh not that number with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but Lateinus with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A great matter: wherein they show their ignorance, as though the Greek diphthong, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. be not usually expressed by a single 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Latin, as we say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Antiocheia in Greek, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Alexandreia, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. diphthong: in Latin, Antiochia, Alexandria, with single 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the cities of Antioch, and Alexandria: this therefore is a small quarrel. But mark I pray, what a poor shift this is: If this small letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. be but admitted, the Pope is made Antichrist: so we have found out Antichrist, saving one small letter. 2. Why, there are many names beside, that make that number, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and others: nay the Rhemists say, that Luther's name, in the Hebrew, and Bellarmine, that David Chytraeus his name, do express that number of 666. But what of all this? there is none of these names, unto the which the three properties aforesaid do agree, as they do unto Latinus, as to betoken the whole body of Antichrist, to show the time of his birth, and describe the qualities of his Kingdom, as the word Latinus doth, yet this we do not say, that this is the very name which is meant in that place, and that the prophesy can have no other meaning: But to show how ridiculous their interpretation is, and how much nearer ours cometh to the truth. OF THE CHARACTER OR SIGN and badge of Antichrist. The Papists. THey do hold that Antichrist shall have a certain outward mark or character, which he shall cause to be printed in the right hands, and foreheads error 59 of all both small and great, that do belong to his kingdom, Apocal. 13.16. But this mark is not yet known, no more than his name is: Only this they are sure of, that the Pope hath not antichrist's character, but rather the character of Christ, the sign of the Cross which he causeth to be signed in the foreheads, Bellarmin. cap. 11. 1. Antichrist must in all respects be contrary to Christ: for as he seethe his image and crucifix adored, so shall he set up his own image to be worshipped: and therefore as Christians now do bear in their foreheads the sign of the Cross which is Christ's mark, so he shall invent an other mark contrary to Christ's: and he will make his name and the letters thereof sacred, as now the name of jesus is worshipped among Christians, Rhemist. Apocal. 13. sect. 7. Answer: First, where have you learned, that roods and images are to be adored and worshipped? or doth not the word of God teach the plain contrary Psal. 115.8.9? O Israel trust in the Lord: but they that worship images are like unto them: he therefore that trusteth in an image cannot trust in God. Again, where learn you to make an Idol of the letters or syllables of Christ's name, to cause men to carry it in their caps, and bow their knee unto it? think you that Saint Paul, when he saith, that all things do bow the knee to the name of jesus, yea of things in heaven, Philip. 2. that he meant, that even the Angels do stoup and make obeisance, when they see the name of jesus written in a glass window? Or who taught you that the sign of the Cross is to be borne upon men's foreheads, and that with crossing of the forehead, we are preserved from danger? Saint Paul, you know, hath no such meaning, when he saith, He bore in his body the marks of the Lord jesus, which were nothing else, but the signs and tokens of his persecutions, as whip, stoning, and such like in his flesh: Galath. 6.17. Neither, when he saith, He rejoiced in nothing but the Cross of Christ, whereby he was crucified to the world, verse 14. hath he any relation to the Cross in the forehead: for it were a miracle, that a man by crossing his forehead, should strait ways crucify and mortify his affections: Nor yet did our Saviour speak of this mark, where he saith, that they which will follow him, must take up his cross, Mark. 8.34. for in that place, by taking up of the Cross, he meaneth, nothing else but the forsaking and denying of ourselves. So it is plain, that in the scripture you find not this superstitious sign of the cross in your foreheads. 2. Where you say, that you do honour the character of Christ, as his name, and the sign of the Cross: You do even so honour Christ, as the soldiers did, that gave him a reed for a sceptre, and thorns for a Crown, and bowed themselves in mockage: So you do leave Christ certain badges and signs of his kingdom; but indeed you spoil him of it, and of his Priesthood too, making other mediators beside him, and other sacrifices propitiatory beside his. What do you else now, in bowing the knee to the name and syllables of jesus, and spoiling him of his honour, but with the soldiers in mockage to bow unto Christ? And I pray you, how do you honour the name of Christ, when you make a jest of the name of Christian? for in Italy it is a word of reproach, taken for an idiot or fool. 3. We answer, that the sign whereby Christians are marked, are not external, but internal: we are sealed by the spirit of God, Ephes. 4.30. The outward signs are none other, but the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper: by the right administration whereof the congregations of the faithful are known. But of this, more shall be spoken in the Antithesis, or Antidotum, in the declaration of our opinion. The Protestants. BY the character or mark of Antichrist, we do not understand any visible sign or badge to be printed in the right hand or the forehead, as the jesuite imagineth: as though he should brand all his subjects in the hand or forehead: But hereby is meant and signified chiefly the society and communion, whereby they shallbe joined to Antichrist, by giving unto him their fidelity, oath, and obedience, agreeing together in the same corruption of faith, and doctrine. This is antichrist's badge or cognisance. Fulk. Apocalip. 13. sect. 7. There are also outward marks of their conjunction with Antichrist: as the shaving of Priests, and greasing them with oil: such are the receiving of holy bread, the wearing of beads, the anointing with chrisom: But the proper note and character, is the oath and profession of fealty and obedience. 1. Antichrist say they, shall bring in another contrary character, to disgrace the sign and character of Christ, namely the cross in the foreheads: Argum. But Christ hath appointed no such visible character, neither are true Christians known by any such: therefore also the character of Antichrist is no such thing. 1. The people of the jews had no such outward badge, who were more charged with outward observations, than Christians are: Circumcision was the only sign of the covenant to them, Genes. 17.11. which was one of their chief sacraments, in place whereof Baptism is enjoined us: Ergo, much less are we to be known by any other outward badge. 2. This place Apocal. 13. is taken out of Ezech. 9 where the Angel is commanded to set a mark upon the foreheads of them that mourn: but that was no visible external mark, for it was showed the Prophet in vision: Ergo, neither is it to be taken so in this place. 3. We grant, the sacraments are badges and marks of our profession: which marks the Pope, the only Antichrist hath defaced, by bringing in five other sacraments, and clean changing, polluting and altering, the right sacraments which Christ instituted: for they have brought into baptism, chrism, salt, oil, spittle, and such trash: into the Eucharist, adoration, transubstantiation, sacrifice, with such like: so that herein he showeth himself Antichrist, and hath altered the true marks of Religion. 2. It appeareth by the effect what is the Character of Antichrist: Argument. The text saith, It was not lawful for any to buy or sell, but he that had the mark or the name of the beast: No more was it lawful for any to have traffic amongst the papists but he that acknowledged the Pope's cross keys, or made himself a member of the Romish Italian Church: Nay they say, he is not of the Church, that acknowledgeth not the Pope to be head of Christ's Church, Fulk. Apocal. 13. sect. 7. The jesuite objecteth: First, this oath of fidelity and conjunction cannot be that character: for it must be in the right hand or forehead. Answer, We have already declared, that it is too childish to take these words literally, as though all antichrist's subjects should carry brands in their foreheads or hands. Secondly, saith he, many do both buy & sell amongst them, that have not made profession of their fealty to Rome, as the jews, Bellarm. cap. 11. Answer: Yea no marvel, for Antichrist is an enemy only to Christ: all other people he can brook well enough beside good Christians: tell me I pray you, whether our merchants be admitted to traffic safely in Spain, if their religion be known: The servants of God amongst you, can neither enjoy, houses, lands, liberty or life: which yoke also was laid a long time upon this land, till it pleased God to have mercy on us: for the which his name be blessed. 3. Again, many years ago, even in Augustine's and Ambrose his time, all Churches were joined to Rome, before Antichrist was yet revealed. Ergo. This is not the Character of Antichrist. Bellarmin. ibid. Answer: First, they were joined then in common consent of religion, not as subjects by compulsion, but voluntary, because at that time Rome in the chiefest points of Religion was in the right faith. 2. But of late days in the Council of Constance not yet 2. hundred years ago, it was made an article of faith, to believe, that the Pope was the head of the Universal Church: yea about the year 600. the title of Universal Bishop first began to be appropriate to Rome: whereby was insinuated, that all Churches in the world should be under the obedience thereof. Lastly, we have the testimony of one of their Popes themselves, who saith plainly, 1. Gregor. that he is the forerunner of Antichrist, which would be called Universal Bishop. lib. 4. epistol. 32. See then by his testimony, the title of Universality, and exacting of obedience of other Churches, is the character & mark of Antichrist. THE FOURTH PART, CONCERNING the generation and original of Antichrist. The Papists. error 60 THey do reject those old fancies concerning Antichrist, as that he should be borne of a Virgin by help of the devil, that he should have the devil to his father: that he should be a devil incarnate: or that he should be Nero, raised from the dead. Refusing these fables, they have found out one as foolish: Our Rhemists hold, that Antichrist shallbe borne of the tribe of Dan. Bellarm. dare not say so, but he thinketh that he shall come of the jews stock, and be circumcised, and be taken of the jews for their Messiah. cap. 12. 1. That he shall come of the tribe of Dan: thus they would prove it, Genes. 49.17. Dan shallbe a serpent by the way biting the horse heels: jerem. 8.16. The neighing of his horses is heard from Dan. And Apocal. 7. where 12. thousand of every tribe are reckoned, only Dan is left out, because (belike) Antichrist should come of that tribe. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 8. Answer: Bellarmine confuteth all these reasons: the first he saith with Hierome to be understood of Samson, who came of the tribe of Dan: the second place is of Nabuchadnezzar's coming to destroy jerusalem, as Hierome also expoundeth it: to the third he saith, that Ephraim is left out as well as Dan: yea and so is Manass●h too: because the tribe of joseph is named for his two sons: but Dan is left out because Levi is reckoned in his place. We may see now, how well they agree, when one jesuite confuteth another. Bellarmin. cap. 12. 2. Bellarmine standeth much upon that place, john 5.43. If an other come in his name, him will ye receive: But saith he, the jews will receive none, but of their own kindred, and whom they look for to be their Messiah. Ergo. Antichrist must come of the jews. ibd. Answer: This place we have showed before, part 1. of this question, to be understood of false prophets amongst the jews, such as mention is made of Act. 5. as Theudas and judas, and not of any one false prophet: so john 10. where Christ compareth himself, which is the true shepherd, with the hireling, he understandeth all hirelings, though he speak in the singular number. The Protestants. THat it is a very fable and cozening device of heretics, to make men believe that Antichrist shall come of the tribe of Dan, or of the stock of the jews, thus we show it. 1. It is out of doubt, that the nation of the jews shall be converted unto God, and mercy shallbe showed again to the remnant of Israel, Rom. 11.25. confessed also by the papists: But if one come, which shall re-edify the temple, and restore the sacrifices and circumcision, such an one, as the jews shall take for their Messiah: who seethe not, that by this means the jews will be more hardened, having now their own hearts desire, their temple; Messiah, circumcision: and their conversion would be greatly hindered, nay quite and clean overthrown? 2. If Antichrist should come of the jews, it is like that his seat should be at jerusalem, and that the temple shall be built again by him: but that cannot be, for the temple, as Daniel prophesieth, shall lie desolate even unto the end, Dani. 9.27. Ergo. he shall not come of the jews. More of this in the next part. THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE seat and place of Antichrist. The Papists. BEllarmine holdeth opinion, that Antichrist shall have his imperial seat at jerusalem, and re-edify and build again the temple, yea for a while command error 61 circumcision to be used and observed, Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. 3. de pontiff. Rhemist, 2. Thessa. 2. sect. 11. 1. Apocal. 11.8. the City of Antichrist is called the great City where our Lord was crucified. But Christ was crucified at jerusalem. Ergo. Answer: First, it cannot be so understood, for ver. 2. jerusalem is called the holy City. ver. 8. This great City is called Sodom and Egypt: how can the same City be capable of such contrary names? How can that be called an holy City, where the abomination of desolation shall be and the seat of Antichrist? Secondly, Augustine in Apocal. homil. 8. understandeth by the great City and the streets thereof, the midst of the Church: And by the great city very fitly is understood the large jurisdiction of the Pope, who saith, he is head of the great city and Catholic Church: Whose seat we see is at Rome, by authority of which city Christ was put to death: and by Antichrist the Pope, Christ also is persecuted in his members. Fulk. annotat. Apocalyps. 11. sect. 2. 2. apocalypse. 17.16. the ten horns, that is, ten kings, amongst whom the Roman Empire shall be divided, shall hate the scarlet whore, that is, Rome, and burn it with fire: how then shall it be the seat of Antichrist? Bellarm. Answer: The text is plain, that the same kingdoms, that before had given their power to the beast, and were subject to the whore of Babylon, shall after make her desolate, and eat her flesh: which thing we see in part to be accomplished already, that many princes have redeemed their necks from Antichrist his yoke, Fulk. Apocal. 17. sect. 3. It is not necessary therefore to be done all at one time, but one after another. 3. 2. Thessal. 2. he shall sit in the temple of God: but at that time the jews only had a temple, the Christians yet had none, and the Apostle speaking of the Church of God, did of purpose refrain this name, lest the Church of Christians should be thought like the jews Synagogue. Bellarm. Answer: First, the jewish temple shall not be built again, as Daniel prophesieth, 9.27. and how can it be built in so short a space, seeing Antichrist, as they say, must reign but three years and an half? and to what purpose, seeing he will abolish all sacrifices? Secondly, though it should be built again, nay if it were standing now, for the exercise of jewish sacrifices, it could not be called the temple of God. Thirdly, by the temple therefore is meant the visible Church, that which sometime was a true visible one, as the Church of Rome, and after should be so taken, reputed and challenged, as it is at this day by the papists: Neither have the papists hereby any advantage, as though the Pope sat in the very true Church: for it is not the true Church indeed, but so reputed and taken by them. Fourthly, though there were no material temples of the Christians in Paul's time, what of that? he speaketh not here of any such material temple, but of the Church of God, neither doth Saint Paul in this sense refuse to use the name of temple, as 1. Corinthian. 3. vers. 16. and 6. vers. 19 and in other places. The Protestants. THat Rome is the seat and place of Antichrist, beside that the Rhemists confess so much that Antichrist shall reign there, annot. Apocal. 17. sect. 4. We prove it thus. 1. Antichrist is called the great whore of Babylon, Apocal. 17.5. But Babylon is Rome, Ergo, Rome is the seat of Antichrist. Object: It was Babylon, while it was governed and ruled by heathen Emperors, but the Church was not then called Babylon, Bellarm. Answer: First, Ergo by your own confession, Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist, seeing by Saint john it was called Babylon. Secondly, it was not only called Babylon in the time of the heathen, but even of Christian Emperors: Augustine saith, it is Occidentalis Babïlon, the Babylon in the west parts, De civitat. dei 18.22. & 27. & prioris filia Babilonis, and daughter to the first Babylon. Thirdly, Saint john doth not only prophesy of the cruelty of the terrene state, but of the false prophet Antichrist, you should also usurp an ecclesiastical government there. Object. Secondly, they object that by the damnation of the great whore, is understood the final destruction of all the company of the reprobate, Rhemist. Apocal. 17.1. Answer, the damnation universally of the wicked is described cap. 20. and therefore this place must be understood of Antichrist, and his adherents: And very fitly doth the name of whore agree to that See, for once a whore indeed was Pope there, called john the eighth. Which so wringeth the Papists, that they have no other shift but impudently to deny it. 2. We have another argument out of the same chapter, vers. 9 the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth: But there is no city in the world notoriously known to stand upon seven hills but Rome: Ergo, it is the seat of Antichrist. Object. The text is, they are also seven kings, so the seven heads or seven hills signify seven kings: for there shall be so many chief Empires which shall persecute the Church, there are five part: Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, the Persians, Grecians, the sixth, the Romans, which in part standeth yet, the seventh shall be Antichrist, Rhemist. Apocalip. 17. sect. 7. Answer: First, the seven heads are expounded to be both seven hills and seven kings: the scripture useth not to expound one hard and obscure thing by an harder and more obscure, as to say, seven heads are seven mountains, that is, seven kings: for we were nearer the sense before: and the term of heads doth more fitly resemble kings, than mountains. Secondly, the seven kings are more fitly taken for seven principal governors of the Romans, as Kings, Tribunes, Consuls, Decemviri, Dictator's, Emperors, Popes: for by these seven orders hath the common wealth been governed first and last. Fulk. ibid. Object. Rome is not now built upon seven hills, it standeth in the plain in Campo Martio, Saunder. ibid. Answer: First, you have then no right to Peter's Chair, for when he sat at Rome, the City stood upon seven hills. Secondly, though the Pope now hath removed his palace to the Vatican, on the other side of the river, yet he did sit for many years in Laterane, until the time of Pope Nicholas the second, who was almost 1100. years after Christ. Thirdly, though the Pope hath removed his palace upon pleasure beyond the river: yet his See is not removed: for upon every one of those hills there are Monasteries, and chapples, and such like monuments to be seen to this day. In mount Caelius there is the Monastery of Gregory the first, the Cathedral Church of Laterane. In mount Aventine, the Monasteries of Sabi●e and Boniface. In the mount Exquilinus the Minster of S. Maria mayor, the ruins of Saint Cyriacus Church, which is yet a title of a Cardinal. The mount Viminalis hath the Church of Saint Laurence. The mount Capitoline hath an house of friars, called Ara coeli. The mount Palatine the Church of Saint Nicholas. The mount Quirinalis hath S. Maria de populo. Wherefore though the Pope's person be removed a little aside, yet the popish religion is exercised, and relics of superstition are to be found in every one of those hills. Wherefore we nothing doubt to conclude, but that Rome is that City upon 7. hills, and so the principal seat of Antichrist. THE sixth PART CONCERNING THE doctrine of Antichrist. The Papists. error 62 THeir opinion is, that Antichrist shallbe an open and manifest adversary to Christ, and that he shall abolish all worship of God, and all religion. Rhemist. annot. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Bellarmine draweth all the doctrine of Antichrist, to these four heads. First, he shall deny jesus to be Christ, and abolish the sacraments instituted by Christ. Secondly, he shall make himself Christ. Thirdly, he shall make himself God, and be adored as God. Fourthly, he shall abolish all other worship, both true and false, yea the worship of Idols. Wherefore, saith he, the Pope cannot be Antichrist, that doth none of these things, cap. 14. of these now in their order. Argument. 1. Antichrist shall utterly deny Christ. 1. john 2.22. & 4.3. Every spirit that confesseth not, that jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, this is the spirit of Antichrist. Ergo, Antichrist shall altogether deny Christ. Answer: First the Rhemists say that this is not a mark for all times, to know an heretic by, but it was only for those times, to confess Christ to be come in the flesh: this is a surer note now, say they, that whoso confesseth not Christ to be really present, and to be sacrificed in the mass, is not of God. Rhemist. annot. 1. john 4. sect. 2. Serm. de verbis Apostoli. 33. Where I will not stand to note the presumption of these papists, that will correct and amend the Apostles rule, to know heretics by, which serveth for all times, and so Augustine taketh it. But here first I oppose our Rhemists' judgement against Bellarmine: for they deny that this place serveth to describe Antichrist, belonging only to the Apostles times: Bellarmine saith, it doth most properly decipher Antichrist. 2. The great Antichrist shall deny Christ no otherwise then other Antichrists and heretics did in the Apostles time: for they are all Antichrists 1. john 2.18. and he giveth one rule to know them all by, vers. 22. But the Antichrists than denied not Christ apertly, but covertly, Ergo, so shall the great Antichrist. The first is true, that the old heretics did not plainly deny Christ to be come in the flesh: but some denied his humanity, some his divinity, some his person. Augustine saith, Arriani hoc negant, licet verbis fateantur, the Arrians deny that Christ is come in the flesh, though they confess it in word: for he that doth not confess that Christ is equal unto God, denieth Christ in the flesh: and so of other heretics. The second also is as true: that Antichrist, who is no other but the Pope, shall also cunningly and covertly deny Christ, for he that denieth the offices of Christ, denieth Christ: As Augustine saith of Peter's denial, Quicquid eius negavit, ipsum negavit. Tract. in johann. 66. whatsoever he denied of or belonging to Christ, he denied Christ. So the Pope denieth Christ to be our Prophet, King, and Priest: His prophetical office he defaceth, and in effect denieth, in disgracing the scriptures, saying, they are imperfect, and contain not all matters necessary to salvation, that their authority bindeth us not without his allowance: His Kingly office, in making himself Christ's Vicar and Vicegerent upon earth, in making new laws, sacraments, ordinances beside Christ's, as necessary to salvation as the rules of the Gospel: His priesthood, in setting up a new propitiatory sacrifice in the abominable Mass, beside the only sacrifice of atonement upon the Cross, in making other mediators and intercessors beside Christ: and such like, whereof we shall have occasion to entreat afterward more at large. Ergo, the Pope in denying the offices of Christ, denieth Christ, and so is Antichrist. 2. He shall make himself Christ and Messiah, Argum. which the jesuite would prove out of john 5. ver. 43. If another come in his name, him will ye receive: But the Pope cometh not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, he calleth himself Christ's Vicar. Ergo he can not be Antichrist, Bellarm. Answer: First, It is not necessary that Antichrist should openly profess himself to be Christ, in name, but he shall do it, opere, indeed, and that closely and covertly: for those whom Christ calleth, pseudochristos, false Christ's, Matth. 24.23. john calleth Antichristos, Antichrists, 1. john. 2.18. False prophets therefore are false Christ's, & Antichrists: yet all those false prophets and heretics did not in name and outward profession make themselves Christ's. 2. The Pope of Rome in effect maketh himself Christ: for who but Christ is the head of the Church? who but Christ is superior to the Angels, and to command them? who but Christ can make sacraments and articles of faith? But all this the Pope taketh upon himself to do: yea the jesuite is not ashamed to say, that he hath the same office which Christ had being upon earth, lib. 5. de pontiff. cap. 4. And whereas they say, the Pope cometh in the name of Christ: it shall as much profit him (it being not in truth▪ but in colour only and show) as it shall profit the false prophets to say in the day of the Lord, Have not we in thy name prophesied, and cast out devils? Matth. 7.22.23. to whom Christ shall make answer, Verily I know you not. 3. Antichrist shall openly name himself God, and command men to worship him as God, Argum. 2. Thessal. 2.4. But this doth not the Pope: Ergo, he is not Antichrist, Bellarm. Answer: First, If Antichrist should be such an one, you might have found amongst the Emperors of Rome divers Antichrists: for such an one Caligula was, that commanded temples to be erected in his name, and his images to be set up to be worshipped, yea in the temple at jerusalem. 2. Saint Paul's words will not bear any such sense: he shall sit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as God: and your vulgar Latin hath ostendens se, tanquam sit Deus, showing himself as though he were God, that is, in deed and effect, not in open profession: for he should sit and be worshipped in the temple as God: how then can it be called the temple of God, being thus a temple of most gross Idolatry? 3. The Pope in effect maketh himself a god upon earth: for he can dispense against the law of nature, the law of GOD, against both new and old testament: as we have showed before, quest. 9 of this Controversy▪ yea Bellarmine saith, he may by his Apostolic authority dispense with the precepts of the Apostles cap. 14. He is able to change the nature of things, and of nothing to make things to be, of wrong to make justice, etc. Pope Nicholaus distinct. 96. yea it is said of the Pope, that he is neither GOD nor man, Extravag. but a middle thing between both: Pope Boniface. I pray you then what is he? he is no Angel, for he is above them, and commandeth them: Papa Angelis praecipit, Agrippa. the Pope commandeth Angels. He must then either be a God or a devil, by your own confession, choose which you will: Nay they do make him a plain God: Es altar Deus in terris, an other God upon earth: and they salute him by these names, Dominus deus noster Papa, our Lord god the Pope. Thus it is proved, that the Pope, both by his deeds as also by his titles, doth make himself god upon earth. 4. Antichrist say they, shall take away all worship yea of Idols, and shall command nothing to be worshipped but himself, Argument. 2. Thessal. 2.4. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, numina, all things that are worshipped. But so doth not the Pope, for he prayeth to Saints, adoreth the body of Christ on the altar. Ergo. Bellarm. cap. 14. Rhemist. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Answer: First, the text proveth not, that he shall take away, all Idols, or things worshipped, but shall exalt himself against them, and make small account of them. The place also of Daniel is plain, 11.37. He shall not regard the God of his fathers, nor care for any God, but shall magnify himself above all: And in his place shall he honour the God Mauzzim, and the God which his fathers knew not, shall he honour, with gold and silver. Out of this place we gather two things: first, that Antichrist shall bring in a strange God, which his fathers never knew: so hath the Pope invented a breaden God, which he honoureth with gold and precious stones, making more account of it, then of any image or relic whatsoever. Secondly, yet he shall magnify himself above all such Gods, Images, roods, shrines and the like▪ yea above his own breaden God: so doth the Pope: for he rideth upon men's shoulders, when his breaden God is carried upon an hackney: he exalteth his throne above the altar, the Cross is carried on the right hand of emperors sword and sceptres, but is laid under his feet: In the year of jubilee, he beateth upon the gates of Paradise with a golden hammer: Fulk. annot. 2. Thesse's. 2.10. so then howsoever like an hypocrite he seem to adore his breaden God, yet indeed doth he magnify himself above it. Bellarmine hath no other shifts to foist off our arguments, but these: he saith, this Mauzzim, is like enough to be the devil himself, whom Antichrist shall worship: but he careth neither for silver or gold: or else it is himself. And how I pray you can a man worship himself? or else, saith he, it is some strong castle where he shall lay his silver and gold: or else you know not what, Bellarmin. 14. 2 That Antichrist shall not abolish Idols of silver and gold, but rather command the people to worship them, as the Pope now doth, it is plain, Apocalyps. 9.20. The Rhemists' object, that he speaketh here against the heathen Idols, which is here called the worship of devils. Answer: First, in this place john speaketh of the end of the world, in the opening of the seventh seal: and the Idols of the heathen were abolished long ago: Neither is there any known nation in the world that hath worshipped Idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, or wood, but the papists, for these many years. Secondly, all worshippers of Images, do worship devils: for Idolatry is a service invented by the devil, Fulk. annot. Apoc. 9 sect. 4. The Protestants. THat Antichrist shall not in outward show be an open enemy to Christ, but secretly and closely, and under pretence of religion take away all religion: thus we make it plain. 1 These places alleged before do prove it: john. 1.2.18. the Antichrist, and the Antichristes, shall be enemies all alike, but the Antichrists in Saint john's time, were covert enemies. Ergo, so shall the great Antichrist. 2. Saint Paul calleth it the mystery of iniquity, 2. Thess. 2.7. and he shall come in all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, vers. 10. and God shall send them strong delusion, to believe lies, vers. 11. All this proveth that Antichrist shall work closely, cunningly, mystically, by deceiving, by delusion, not by open enmity, and profaneness, or by violence and tyranny only, as the papists imagine. 3 Antichrist shall be the greatest enemy to Christ, and his kingdom, that ever was in the world. But he is a greater enemy that pretendeth friendship, and yet is a foe, that under the name of Christ persecuteth the Christian faith, than he that openly destroyeth it, making no show of Religion: as David complaineth, Psalm. 41.9. Yea my familiar friend whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lift up his heel against me: This was accomplished in judas, who betrayed Christ with a kiss, who was the greatest enemy of Christ, sinning against his own knowledge and conscience: Even so they now a days, are the greatest enemies that Christ and the Church hath, that betray Christ with a kiss, which name themselves the Church of God, and yet make havoc of the Church. 4. Lastly, Augustine saith as much, that Antichrist shall come with deceivable doctrine, and show of righteousness. Quid expa●escimus in Antichristo, nisi quia nomen suum honoraturus est, & Domini contempturus▪ Quid aliud facit, De verb. domin. secund. johan. serm. 45. qui dicit, ego iustifico? Quid aliud est dei ignorare justitiam, & suam velle constituere, quam dicere, ego iustifico, ego sanctifico? What other thing do we fear in Antichrist, but that he shall honour his own name, and contemn Christ's? What else doth he, which saith, I do justify, I make holy? What is this but to destroy the righteousness of God, and to bring in his own? Mark now I pray you, if all this be not true of the Pope of Rome: for he taketh upon him to justify, to sanctify, to dispense with men's sins for an hundred, yea a thousand years: to rid souls out of Purgatory: nay to command Angels to carry their souls to heaven, that die in their Pilgrimage to Rome, as Pope Clement the sixth did: what is this▪ else but to say, jewel. p. 595. Ego iustifico, sanctifico, I justify, I sanctify? and who I pray you, doth so, if Augustine may be judge, but Antichrist? but thus the Pope doth. Ergo he is Antichrist. THE SEVENTH PART CONCERNING the miracles of Antichrist. The Papists. ANtichrist, they say, shall be a Magician, and work strange signs and error 63 wonders by the power of the devil: and these three miracles by name shall be wrought by him: He shall cause fire to come from heaven, and make the Image of the beast to speak; and thirdly, he shall feign himself dead and rise again, Bellarm. cap. 15. 1. He shall by the help of the devil cause fire to come down from heaven, as it is Apocal. 13.13. Answer: First, it is a great question whether the devil have any such power to bring down fire from heaven: for the jesuite himself remembreth the story 1. King. 18. How Baal his priests would have fetched down fire from heaven, but they could not: only Elias did it: and he that will do the like, must have Elias his spirit, as Christ saith, Luke 9.55. 2. It is very gross to understand this literally: for the whole chapter is mystical, of the Beast with seven heads, of another beast with two horns, and all the rest. But three ways Antichrist may fitly be said to bring fire from heaven: First, by fire the holy Ghost may be understood, as Matth. 3. and Act. 2. The spirit appeared in fiery tongues: so Antichrist and his ministers make men believe, that they do confer the holy Ghost, as in consecration, in absolution of sinners, and such like. Secondly, the Pope's thunderbolts of excommunication, are resembled to fire, whereby he hath made the whole world afraid in times past, as though he could cause the heavens to fall upon men: yea, to make the matter more likely, the Pope useth burning Tapers in excommunicating men, which with violence are thrown down as though GOD himself did rain fire from heaven upon them. And this is the terrible manner of their excommunication: there are three candles burning set up: Fox. p. 1038 and then they begin to accurse them, whom they excommunicate, body and soul to the devil: and let us, say they, quench their souls in hell fire, if they be dead, as this candle is put out (and with that they put out one of the candles) If they be alive, let us pray, that their eyes may be put out, as this candle is, and so the second candle goeth out, and that all their senses may fail them, as this candle looseth his light, and so the third candle goeth out. Behold, here is the fire which the Pope and his popelings do bring from heaven. Sic Bullinger. serm▪ 60. in apocalypse. Thirdly, the Dragon is said, apocalypse. 12.4. with his tail to draw many stars from heaven: that is, many excellent men, as stars in gifts and knowledge, shall be deceived by the Pope, and be won unto him: yea the Pope himself is a Star fallen from heaven to the earth, from heavenly doctrine to earthly tradition, apocalypse. 9.1. thus Antichrist also may be said to fetch fire from heaven. 2. The second miracle, he shall cause the Image of the beast to speak, which the jesuite understandeth literally, that is, grossly. Answer: First, Bellarmine and our jesuits do not here agree: for Bellarmine saith, that these two miracles shall be wrought by Antichrist himself, to fetch fire from heaven: and to cause the Image to speak: But the Rhemists say, this other beast, is another false Prophet, inferior to Antichrist, which shall also work wonders, such an one as Caluine, say they: where they show their malice, more than learning, for Caluine, they know, took not upon him to work miracles, annot. Apocal. 13. sect. 3. 2 This causing the image to speak hath a better meaning: The image of the beast is the shadow of the old stately Empire of Rome, which was erected by the Pope: for the west parts wanted an Emperor the space of three hundred years from Augustulus time till Pope Leo the third, who made Charles the great king of France, Auentin. lib. 4. Emperor: And at this day is there nothing in the Empire, but only a name, title and image: for neither hath the Emperor the Imperial authority, which is in the Pope, nor the Imperial kingdoms, unless he have them of his own. And the Pope only maketh this Image to speak, for unless he do confirm the election of the king of the Romans, he is not thought worthy the name of Emperor. Bullinger. ibid. 3 And yet we deny not, but that they both have and may make images speak either by the help of the devil, as Dunstane caused a rood to speak, or by juggling, as the Rood of grace by gimmals was made to roll the eyes, move the lips and such like, in king Henry's days. 3 The third miracle that Antichrist shall work, is to fayne himself dead, and to rise again, Apocalyps. 13.3. Answer: There can be no such thing gathered out of the text: First, the words will not bear it: the text is, that one of the heads was wounded to death, and the wound was healed: which cannot be so meant, as though he feigned himself dead: but he received a wound indeed. 2 The sense is mystical, as through the whole chapter: First, it is said, that the seventh head was wounded to death: but revived again: that is, the seventh government of the Romans in the Popedom: for the papacy had many times deadly blows, and yet was healed again: especially when there were three Popes together, at Rome, in France, and the third in Spain: but this wound was cunningly healed up in Pope Martin the fift, in the Council of Constance, the other three being deposed. Sic Bullinger Serm. 59 Secondly, it is said vers. 14. that the beast whose image remained, had the wound of a sword, and yet lived: which is understood of the Roman Empire, revived and quickened by the Pope. The Protestants. IT is true that Antichrist shall work signs and wonders by the power of Satan, 2. Thessal. 2. but lying signs, both because they shall be done to confirm lies, neither shall they be such as the Prophets wrought, but many of them but cunning and cozening sleights of jugglers. And for such wonders we need not to search far, the Popish Church is full of them▪ Where else then should we look for Antichrist? 1 There have been of the Pope's themselves▪ Sorcerers and Conjurers, such an one Antichrist shall be, saith Bellarmine. Silvester the second came up to the papacy by the help of the devil, as we have before showed. Gregory the seventh was condemned in the Council of Brixia for a conjuror: And Benno a Cardinal in those days thus writeth of him: that on a time he sending two of his servants for a certain Satanical book, charging them not to look into it: they notwithstanding looked into it, and presently a great multitude of devilish spirits were round about them: who were instant upon them to know why they were called for: the servants being at the first astonished, yet coming to themselves, enjoined them to pluck down certain high walls near to Rome: and so they came to their master, Fox. page 176. What other Antichrist now need we look for? If he must be a conjuror, we may here make our choice. 2 We are not ignorant, what lies and fables are reported by the papists of the miraculous acts of their popish Saints, of the which we have spoken before: As how Dunstane appeared to a cripple, that came to his Tomb to be helped of his lameness: How Plegildus a priest saw and handled the shape of a child upon the alter, which after he had kissed returned again to the likeness of bread. How a certain Iewes boy told his father that he saw a child broken in pieces upon the altar and distributed among the Christians: and the boy for that, Fox. p. 1148 was cast into a furnace of fire, and was preserved from the fire by the Virgin Marie, which appeared to him, and spread her garment over him. Many such either lies and fables, or works of devils the popish Church hath many: What need we therefore doubt, but that it is the Antichristian Church? 3 Augustine saith, Saint Paul calleth them lying wonders, either because Antichrist shall deceive men per phantasmata, with juggling sleights, or because, ad mendacia per trahet credituros, De civitat. deilib. 20. cap. 19 by his wonders he shall make them believe lies. But in which sense they are so called, it shall appear when Antichrist is come saith he: and indeed it is now apparent; for our adversaries have plenty of both kinds, both miracles wrought indeed by the devil, and many pretty juggling feats beside. THE EIGHTH part OF THE Question, concerning the wars, and kingdom of Antichrist. The Papists. BEllarmine saith, that Antichrist shall make great battles against the error 64 Saints, and shall conquer the whole world: first by craft he shall aspire to the kingdom of the jews: secondly he shall fight with three kings of Lybia, Egypt, Aethiopia. Thirdly, with a great army he shall persecute the Christians throughout the world, and this shall be the battle of Gog and Magog, Bellarm. cap. 16. 1 That he shall craftily aspire to the kingdom, he proveth it out of Daniel, 11.21. where it is prophesied of one that he shall obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Ans. This prophecy of Daniel, as likewise the whole chapter, was historically accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes, who defrauded Seleucus his brother's son of the kingdom, and circumvented his elder brother Demetrius: so that it being once fulfilled, it cannot be wrested to any other sense: of Antichrist it cannot be meant; for here is a succession of Kings described, vers. 19 One is said to be overthrown, that is, Seleucus', but not in battle, for he was poisoned, vers. 18. There another is said to be overthrown and to be no more found, that is, Antiochus magnus. But Antichrist cannot succeed any in the kingdom of the jews: for he shall be their first King, as the Papists imagine. 2 He shall (saith Bellarmine) overcome three kings, of Lybia, Egypt, Aethiopia, Dan. 11.43. and this horn shall remove three other horns, Dan. 7.8. Ans. This also must needs be understood of Antiochus Epiphanes: and they are two prophecies. First, he is called a little horn, because he was not heir to the kingdom: he removeth three other horns: for by his means Ptolemaeus Philopater was cast out of the kingdom in his father's time Antiochus the great: his brother Seleucus poisoned, his son Demetrius disinherited, Tremell. Dan. 7.20. The second prophecy was also accomplished by Antiochus, who overcame Egypt, and the countries adjoining. Of Antichrist it cannot be understood: for the first prophecy speaketh of a beast with ten horns, which must be understood of one kingdom & monarch, and by the ten horns ten Kings are signified: for so was Antiochus Epiphanes the tenth from Seleucus: here than is a succession of Kings: but Antichrist shall not succeed any. 3 The jesuite saith, that Antichrist with a great army shall vex the whole world, and that shallbe the battle of Gog and Magog prophesied of Ezech. 38.39. & Apocal. 20. Ans. The prophecy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the time of the Macchabees, when as Gog and Magog, that is Antiochus, with the help of the Syrians and Scythians and other countries, molested the people of God: for vers. 23. chap. 39 the Prophet speaketh of the captivity of Israel, from the which they should at that time be delivered. And again, the Lord would not leave his Church, which at that time endured great afflictions at the hands of the heathen, comfortless: but if these prophecies of Ezechiel and Daniel concern them not, then small had been their comfort. Lastly, the jews may with as good reason understand the prophecies concerning Christ, of their Messiah, whom they yet look for, as you may these prophecies concerning the enemies of the Church, of your Antichrist. The other prophecy also is fulfilled, Apocal. 20.8. how Gog and Magog from the four corners of the earth, shall compass the tents of the Saints: for by Gog and Magog, is understood the whole multitude of the enemies of the Church both within and without, as Turks, Papists, Infidels, which all have agreed together at times and in their turns, though enemies amongst themselves, to afflict the people of God, Fulk. annot. in hunc locum. And if you will needs also have the other two prophecies fulfilled again, being once before accomplished: they agree fitly to the Turkish Empire: for Mahomet by craft and subtlety aspired to a kingdom, and in short time he overran Egypt and Lybia, with other parts of Africa. The Protestants. WE deny that there shall come any such Antichrist: or that it is possible for him to wage battle with the whole earth. We grant that the Antichrist of Rome hath warred with the Church, poisoning it with corrupt doctrine, and persecuting the same by fire and sword: which his rage is well slaked now, God be praised, in many places, and his tyranny overpast: miserable were the state of the Church if it should endure such a brunt again. 1 It is impossible that Antichrist in so short a time as three years and an half, should conquer all nations, and be Monarch of the whole world, burn & sack Rome, and drive out the Pope, as the Papists grant themselves, Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 3. de pontifice. A man cannot in that space travail through the whole world, much less conquer it. And seeing Antichrist shall begin at jerusalem, make his habitation there, and have an end there: (for (say they) he shall be slain in Mount Olivet, Gloss. sup. Apocal:) It is not like that in his own person he should conquer the world: neither can it be thought that he shall do it by his deputies, for than they should be the Antichrists and not he. See what a Labyrinth you are fallen into, out of the which you cannot wind yourselves. 2 Antichrist is not described in scripture as a warrior, or warlike man sitting harnessed in his tent, but like an hypocrite advancing himself in the temple; not coming with engines of war, but deluding and deceiving with false miracles, and lying signs, 2. Thessaly. 2. Not with Heralds of arms openly proclaiming war: but he shall work in a mystery, Apocal. 17.5. Wherefore it is but a popish dream and fancy, that Antichrist shall be such a mighty warrior: yet we deny not but that divers of the Popes have been warriors, but that was beyond the commission of Peter's cross keys. 3 Lastly, they have no ground of this their opinion out of scripture: for neither Ezechiel nor Daniel maketh for them, prophesying of the state of the Church before Christ: nor yet the Apocalypse, the prophecy of Gog and Magog being accomplished in the greatest part already: Wherefore away with these misty clouds of your brainsick inventions: they shall not be able to abide the lightsome sunbeams of the truth. THE NINTH AND LAST PART OF THIS question, whether the Pope be Antichrist. The Papists. THis question pincheth our adversaries very sore, that we should touch their error 65 head so near, as to make him Antichrist. For this being once known, we need not labour much about other matters: for Antichrist with all his doctrine must not be heard, but abhorred of the Church. They therefore, craftily foreseeing this, do take great pains to deliver the Pope out of this danger, and have found out many starting holes, but all to small purpose: yea their forefathers seeing the matter so plain, and almost put out of doubt, Concil. Later. sess. 11. gave strait charge in the late Council of Laterane to all preachers, that none should dare once to speak of the coming of Antichrist. This argueth a guilty conscience. But yet they face out the matter, and say, the Pope cannot be Antichrist: their arguments are none other than those we have heard, being eight in number. 1 Antichrist shall be one singular man: the Popes have been many, part. 1. of this question. Secondly, he shall reign but three years and an half: but the Pope hath continued many hundred years, part. 2. Thirdly, he shallbe known by his name: the Popes have sundry names, part. 3. Fourthly, he must come of the stock of the jews: but there was never yet any jew Pope, part. 4. Fiftly, his seat must be at jerusalem: the Pope's is at Rome, part. 5. Sixtly, he shall manifestly deny Christ: so doth not the Pope, say they, part. 6. Seventhly, he shall do strange miracles, as bring down fire from heaven, cause Images to speak, part. 7. Eightly, He shall wage great battles, and conquer all the world, part. 8. Which cannot agree to the Pope: Ergo, he is not Antichrist. Answer: To these eight arguments, we have before answered severally: showing, how fabulous, ridiculous, and impossible our adversaries assertions are, without ground of scripture, show of reason, or colour of argument. Wherefore we will not trouble the reader with needless repetitions, desiring him to have recourse to that which hath been already said. The Protestants. THat the Pope of Rome is very Antichrist, and that all the qualities and properties which the scripture describeth Antichrist by, do fitly agree unto his person: and that we are not therefore to expect or look for any other Antichrist. Thus by testimony of scripture, and sufficient reasons deduced out of the same, we trust it shall appear to all men. 1 The first place of scripture is Daniel 11. where many notes and marks are declared proper to Antichrist, yet especially set forth to describe Antiochus Epiphanes, who might be very well a type and figure of Antichrist who was then to come. 1 vers. 36. It is said, He shall do what him listeth. This is most true of the Pope: his will must stand for reason, Distinct. 96. cap. satis. If the Pope should draw infinite souls to hell, no man is to say unto him, Sir, why do you so, Distinct. 40? Hear Bellarmine hath but this poor shift, to say, that it is meant only of public judgement, that no man is by authority to call the Pope to account: but yet a brotherly admonition may be used. But who seethe not that the words are general: Nemo debet ei dicere, No man ought to say unto him: neither judge, nor other? 2 He shall magnify himself against GOD, and speak blasphemous things against GOD: hath not the Pope done so? Of him it is said, that GOD and the Pope have but one Consistory: I am able to do almost all that GOD can do, Fox. pag. 785. articls. 192. I am above all and in all: Hostiens. Nay, that Dominion and Lordship which Christ had in earth, but habitu, in habit, the Pope hath actu, in act and in deed. Again, as we read, the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof, and as Christ saith, all power is given me in heaven, and in earth: so is it to be affirmed, that the Vicar of Christ hath power on things celestial, terrestrial, infernal, apud Fox. pag. 791. col. 1. Now let the discreet reader judge, whether this fellow do not magnify himself, and speak blasphemously against God. 3 He shall prosper till the wrath be accomplished: So hath the Pope had but too good success: he hath subdued Emperors, and made them his servants, trodden upon their necks, made them serve at his table, crowned them with his feet, made them hold his stirrup, and lead his horse by the bridle. But we do hope that his date is out, and that he shall prosper no longer. 4 vers. 37. He shall not care for the God of his fathers: No more doth the Pope: for he hath invented and erected a new breaden god, which he worshippeth, hangeth up in Churches, carrieth about in procession, being but a piece of bread. This breaden god a might, his forefathers never knew. 5 He shall not care for the desires of women: So he prohibiteth lawful marriage, permitteth adulteries, and the unnatural lust of Sodomites. Bellarmine first denieth the text, which is faithfully translated according to the Hebrew. Secondly, he saith, the place is meant literally and properly of Antiochus, who was given to the pleasures of women. Answer: First, if it be meant literally of Antiochus, then can it not be meant literally of your Antichrist: If Antiochus be but a type of Antichrist, then can you not necessarily conclude out of this place: for types prove not, unless they be divine, that is, appointed of God to be types, which you can not show for this place: see then, the best arguments that you have for your Antichrist, out of the prophecies of Daniel and Ezechiel, are proved nothing worth. Secondly, as Antiochus was given to unlawful desires of women, so is the Pope: yet might he be an enemy to chaste and holy marriage, and so is the Pope. And by the way let it be noted, that the jesuite picketh quarrels with scripture, and maketh it false: for the text saith, He, that is, Antiochus, shall not care for the desires of women. Yes (saith the jesuite) he shall be given to the pleasures of women, clean contrary to the text, Bellarm. cap. 21. 6 vers. 38. He shall honour his god Mauzzim, that is, a god of power and riches, with gold, silver, precious stones: Both of these are most true of the popish religion: for their god hath brought them great riches, lands, treasure, possession: by their idolatrous Masses, they have greatly enriched themselves, wherein their breaden god playeth the chief part: and therefore they do worship him again with gold, silver, precious stones: what rich Corporals, and Altarclothes, Copes, Vestments of velvet, silk, wrought with gold, are seen in their Churches? what gild of roods, and Roodlofts, garnishing of Idols, what rich Crucifixes of silver, of gold, beset with pearl and precious stones? This description therefore of Daniel, as you see, doth in every respect agree with the conditions and properties of Antichrist of Rome, Argument. Illyrici. Secondly, Saint Paul's description in every point also is verified in the Pope. First: He shall exalt himself above God, and all that is called God, 2. Thess. 2.4. So the Pope challengeth the full authority of Christ, as we have showed before, and exalteth himself above Emperors, which are called gods upon earth: yea they have taken the just proportion of inequality between the Pope and Emperor: for the Pope is 47. degrees above the Emperor: as the Sun is 47. degrees bigger than the Moon, Innocent 3. in decretalib. 2 He shall sit in the temple, that is, in the Church: so the Pope nameth himself head of the Church, and hath the keys, as he braggeth, both of heaven and hell. Therefore the Turk cannot be that Antichrist, because he is out of the Church: and so in truth is the Pope, but yet he challengeth to him and his the name of the Church. 3 The mystery wrought in Paul's time, and afterward increased: so not long after the Apostles time, the Bishops of Rome began to lift up their heads above other Churches, as Zozimus falsified the Council of Nice, and sent to the 6. Council of Carthage, to have it there confirmed, that it might be lawful to send up appeals to Rome. 4 Antichrist shall come with lying signs: So hath the Pope done, as experience proveth, and we have showed before. 5 vers. 11. God shall send strong delusions, that they shall believe lies. And in time of Popery, men indeed were so strongly deluded, that the father persecuted the son, the sons set fire to their father, yea the husband was made a witness against the wife, the wife against her husband, and servants accused their masters. These things are so well known in stories, that I need not come to particulars. 6 Antichrist is called a wicked man, and a man of sin, vers. 3.8. And where shall you find more wicked men, then among the Popes? Silvester the 2. gave his soul to the devil to obtain the Papacy, Fox. pag. 167. Benno reporteth of Hildebrand, that he poisoned six Popes to come to the Popedom. Pope Stephen and Sergius, took up the body of Formosus, and mangled it, cutting off his head and fingers, and so cast it into Tiber, Fox. pag. 120. We have heard before, what a holy Father Pope john the 13. was, he lay with his own sister, and with his father's Concubines, playing at dice, called for the devil, was slain in adultery. And was it not, I pray you, a common proverb in England? He that goeth to Rome once, seethe a wicked man; he that goeth twice, learneth to know him; he that goeth the third time, bringeth him home with him, Fox. pag. 841. argument. Illyrici. The third place we do take out of the Apocalyps, chap. 9 where is a plain story set down of the Pope. 1 vers. 1. He is a star fallen from heaven: he is departed from the ancient faith of Rome to superstition and idolatry. 2 He hath the key of the bottomless pit: who giveth the cross keys in his arms but the Pope? who saith he may evacuate all Purgatory at once, if he will, but he? Who saith, he may, Pleno iure currus animarum plenos secum ad tartara detrudere, by full right, carry down to hell with him chariots Ioden with souls? cap. si Papa. distinct. 42. Is not this the Pope? who then more fitly may be said to have the key of the bottomless pit. 3 There arise out of the bottomless pit a great flock of Locusts, that is, the innumerable sort of begging Friars: for they are in every respect described: First, compared to Locusts for their number, vers. 3. There were an 100 divers sorts of Friars, Fox. pag. 260. Secondly, they had power given them for five months: that is, as Walter Brute expoundeth it, taking a month for thirty days, & a day for a year, as it is prophetically taken: an 150. years, for so long it was from the beginning of the Friars under Innocent the 3. anno 1212. to the time of Armachanus, who preached, disputed, and wrote against the Friars, about anno 1360. Fox. pag. 414. Thirdly, they shall sting like Scorpions, not slay all at once, but venom and poison the conscience with the sting of their pestilent doctrine. Fourthly, other parts also of the description agree, as vers. 7. They are as horses prepared to battle, that is, stout & ambitious, their hair as the hair of women, that is, they shall be effeminate, and given to the lusts of the flesh: their teeth as the teeth of Lions: they by valiant begging shall devour the portions of the poor: as it was well proved in King Henry the 8. days, in the Supplication of beggars, that the sum of the friars alms came to a great sum in the year: for the five orders of Friars had a penny a quarter for every one of every householder throughout England, that is, for them all twenty pence by the year▪ suppose, that there be but ten households in every town, and let there be twenty thousand parishes and towns in England; it will not want much of twenty thousand pound. Thus had they Lions teeth, that is, consuming and devouring. Lastly, they have a King, vers. 11. whose name is Abaddon, a destroyer: for the Pope their chief prince and patron, hath by his Antichristian doctrine laid waste the Church of God, Argument. Chytraei. The fourth place of scripture we will take out of the 17. of the Apocalyps▪ there the seat of Antichrist is described. First, vers. 5. It is called Babylon, the city which reigneth over the Kings of the earth, vers. 18. This can be no other but Rome, which then had the Empire of the whole world. Secondly, It is the city built upon seven hills or mountains, vers. 9 that is no other but Rome. Thirdly, the whore, which is Antichrist, shall sit upon the beast with seven heads and ten horns, that is, shall succeed in the Empire, and have the authority thereof: so hath the Pope. Fourthly, the ten horns, that is, the Kings of the earth, shall give their authority to the beast: but afterward shall devour her flesh: Even so the Kings of the earth by their sword maintained the authority of the Pope. But now being taught by the Gospel, they are made the Lords free men, and begin to subdue their necks from his yoke. The fift place is 1. john 2.22. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that jesus is Christ? the same is Antichrist that denieth the father and the son. Even so the Pope of Rome, though not openly and apertly, yet closely and subtly is an enemy unto the whole trinity: He exalteth himself above God the father; because he taketh upon him to dispense not only against the law of nature, but against the law of God, the moral law, and against the precepts both of the old and new testament: but a law cannot be dispensed withal, but by the same authority or greater. Against jesus Christ he exalteth himself, and all his offices, he denieth him to be the only Prophet, saying, the scriptures are unperfect, and that their traditions are also necessary to salvation. Again, he maketh other books scripture, than those which are Canonical. His kingly office he doth arrogate to himself, in making laws to bind the conscience, in ordaining other Sacraments, in granting Indulgences and Pardons, & saying that he is the head of the Church. His Priesthood he is an enemy unto, constituting another priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, then that of our Saviour Christ which begun upon the Cross, and remaineth still in his person, being incommunicable to any other creature: yet they make every sacrificing Priest to be of the order of Melchisedech. He impugneth the office of the holy spirit, counting that profane which the holy Ghost hath sanctified, as marriage and meats: arrogateth in all things the spirit of truth not to err: apply the merits of Christ's passion after his own pleasure, by Pardons, Indulgences, by ceremonies and Sacraments of his own invention, Fulk. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 10. Ergo, we conclude out of S. john, that seeing he denieth jesus to be Christ, he is Antichrist. Sixtly, S. Paul saith, that Antichrist shallbe an adversary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Thess. 2.4 An adversary in doctrine, teaching clean contrary to the Gospel of Christ: so doth the Pope. 1 The scripture saith, we ought to put our trust only in God, and not in man, jerem. 17.7. and to call upon God only in the day of trouble, Psal. 50.15. and to worship him in spirit and truth, john 4.24. The Papists say clean contrary, that we must call upon Saints, and believe they can help us, and they teach us to fall down before Images, which are stocks and stones. 2 The Gospel teacheth, that we are freely saved by jesus Christ, without works, which neither merit remission of sins, nor eternal life, for eternal life is the free gift of God, Rom. 6.23. And our sins are forgiven us freely, because they are not imputed, Rom. 4.6. They affirm clean contrary, that by our merits we may deserve heaven: and that vita aeterna, is merces bonorum operum, that eternal life is the reward of good works. But S. Paul saith, it is a free gift, Bellarm. cap. 23. 3 The Gospel teacheth us, that we should grow up to an assurance of our election, 2. Pet. 1: 10. and with boldness to call upon the name of God, Heb. 4.10. The Papists say, we should be kept always in doubt, and it is presumption to be assured of the favour of God. 4 The Gospel saith, that not only external acts, but even secret thoughts are sin, yea the very concupiscence of the flesh to be sin, Genes. 6.5. Rom. 7.7. They deny that concupiscence and evil thoughts are sin, unless the be voluntary, and have the consent of the will, ibid. 5 The Gospel teacheth, that it is impossible for any man to keep and perform the law of God, Rom. 8.7. Luk. 17.10. They doubt not to say, that a man by grace may fulfil the law, and by fulfilling of it deserve heaven. 6 Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds, and Paul. 1. Cor. 11. giving a direction concerning the Sacrament, not only to the Pastors and Ministers, but to the whole Church of Corinth, doth rehearse the institution in both kinds. But the Papists do minister but in one kind to the people. 7 The Gospel saith, that the Church is builded upon Christ, and he is the only foundation thereof, 1. Cor. 3.11. The Papists hold that Peter first, and now the Pope, whom they make his successor, is the foundation of the Church, Argument. Chytraei. And thus we see, the Pope in his doctrine is a plain adversary to Christ, and therefore Antichrist. The seventh argument, Apocalyps 17.1. Antichrist is called the great whore: And here we are to note the singular providence of God, who suffereth not one jot of his word to fall to the ground: for even soverily, Anno 853. next after Leo the 4. there was a right whore elected Pope called john, or if you will, joane the 8. who fate in the Papacy two years, six months; and on a time being with child, fell in labour in the midst of a solemn procession. Whereupon there was a certain Image of a woman with a child set up in the same place where the Pope was delivered: And ever since the Popes, when they go to Laterane, do shun that street, being yet the nearer way, abhorring that fact and the memory thereof. There was also long after a chair of Porphyry stone kept in Laterane, with an hole in the midst, wherein the new elected Pope was wont to sit to have his humanity tried, jewel. pag. 428. Defence. Apol. Object. 1. Harding, and since him Bellarmine object, that there was never any such Pope, because she is not registered in the Pope's Calendar. Ans. No, they left her out for shame, as Marianus Scotus writeth. Again, Bishop's names have upon sundry occasions been left out: as Chrysostom's name was stricken out upon displeasure out of the table of the Bishops of Constantinople: So Pope Cyriacus is not reckoned in the Calendar of the Popes, and yet he was one of them. Object. 2. Whereas it is said, that this Pope joane was first student at Athens, and afterward professed at Rome, Harding denieth, that at Athens then there was any place for students, but all was barbarous, and so saith Bellarm. neither that at Rome there was any open profession of letters at that time. Ans. First, anno 680. the Bishop of Athens was at a Council at Constantinople, called Synodus sexta, anno 742. at the second Council of Nice, there were many Bishops of Greece present: and Pope joane followed, anno 853. and how should Athens afterward become barbarous, being inhabited all this while by Christians? for it was not taken of the Turks before anno 1440. Secondly, and me thinks it is a discredit for Rome, that there should be there under the Pope's nose no profession of learning, and that there should be there no University of Students, where the universal Bishop sat. But Theodoricus Niemus, sometime the Pope's Secretary, saith, she read a Lecture two years at Rome. Object. 3. It is not like that God would suffer S. Peter's chair to be polluted by a woman, Harding. Ans. You presume to much of God's providence, having no such promise. Why might not a woman as well creep into S. Peter's chair at Rome, as one did into S. Andrew's of Constantinople? as Bellarmine confesseth, what privilege hath one more than the other. Object. 4. As for the chair (saith Harding) it is a fable: but Bellarmine more modestly granteth there is a chair of Porphyry, but to another purpose, to show the Pope's humility, not to try his humanity. Again, Harding saith it is a lie, that the Popes refrain to go that way. But Bellarmine, that knoweth Rome better than he, denieth not that the Pope so doth, but not for any such heinous fact there committed, but because it is a straight way, and is not fit for his train. And as for the Image, Harding saith, it representeth no such thing, but is rather like one of the great ragged stones at Stonage. Bellarmine denieth not, but there is such an Image, but it seemeth not to be a picture of a woman, but rather of some heathen priest going to sacrifice. We see how handsomely they agree in their answers: And no marvel, for if one liar is many times contrary to himself, how should two liars agree? But these men go only by conjectures: we have their own writers against them: for Theodoricus Niemus saith there is such an Image that resembleth such a thing, and that the Popes will not go that way in procession to this day upon that occasion. And as for the chair of marble to that use, to search the Pope, Sabellicus reporteth it, Aenead. 9 lib. 1. In this one example we may see the boldness of our adversaries, which are not ashamed to deny so famous a story, being reported by Sabellicus, Leonicus Chalcondyla, Marianus Scotus, that lived about the year 1028. Sigebertus Gimblacens. anno 1100. beside thirteen Historiographers, as they are quoted by Bishop jewel, and of them all not one a lutheran. Desens. Apol. p. 434. It is almost as foul a shame for them to deny so manifest and plain a thing, as it is a great blot to their succession, that a whore sat sometimes in the Papal chair. Thus then by evident demonstration it appeareth, that the Pope is the whore of Babylon, and so consequently very Antichrist. Lastly, in the eight place, their own witnesses shall speak: Bernard saith, Bestia de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os, loquens blasphemias, Petri Cathedram occupat. The Beast in the Apocalypse, Epistol. 125 to the which a mouth was given speaking blasphemies, doth occupy Peter's chair. joachim. Abbas saith, Antichristus iam pridem natus est Romae: Antichrist a good while since was borne at Rome. The Bishops in the Council at Reynspurge say thus: Hildebrandus Papa, sub specie religionis, iecit fundamenta Antichristi: Hildebrand under colour of holiness, hath laid a foundation for Antichrist. Nay, long before any of these, Gregory the 1. first of all the Gregory's, and the best of all the Popes that have followed him, thus prophesied of his successors: Ego fidenter dico, Lib. 6. epist. 30. quòd quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit: I speak it confidently, that whosoever calleth himself, universal Priest, or desireth so to be called in the pride of his heart, is the forerunner of Antichrist. But the Popes of Rome are now called universal Bishops or Priests: Ergo, they are either Antichrists, or the forerunners of Antichrist. But it is not like that Antichrist should have so many forerunners, and so many years, almost a thousand since Boniface the 3. was first called universal Bishop: Ergo, Antichrist is already come, and hath been a good while: and where else should he be, but there where his forerunners were, namely, at Rome? Now therefore seeing we have so many witnesses, the scripture, reason, experience, authorities to prove the Pope Antichrist: who will either be so simple, as seeing so good grounds, not to believe it, or so scrupulous, having such certain evidence, to doubt thereof? And thus at the length, by God's gracious assistance, we have finished and brought this great question concerning Antichrist, to an end, as also the whole controversy as touching the Bishop or Pope of Rome. THE FIFT GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING SPIRITVAL PERSONS, COMMONLY CALLED THE CLERGY. Having now sufficiently handled the controversy of the chief member of the militant Church, which our adversaries say is the Pope, we must come in the next place to speak of the middle parts, which are those whom they call Clericos, Clerks, and they are of two sorts; Secular, which have any public function in the Church: or Regular, which live according to some rule, and they are called Monachi, Monks. First then of their secular Clerks. This controversy containeth six questions. 1 Of the name and title of Clerks or Clergy men. 2 Concerning the election of Bishops and Ministers: first of all in general: secondly, of the election of the Bishop of Rome. 3 Concerning Ecclesiastical orders. First, in general: secondly, of the difference of Bishops and other Ministers. Thirdly, of Cardinals. 4 Concerning the keys of the Church, and the power of binding and losing: the question divided into four parts. 5 Concerning the marriage of Ministers: three parts of the question. 6 Of the maintenance of the Church by tithes: in two parts. THE FIRST QUESTION, CONCERNING THE name of Clerks or Clergy men. The Papists. error 66 THis name Clergy, in Latin, Clerus, is a name made proper to the spirituality, by use of antiquity, and agreeably to Scriptures: they are so called, because they are the Lords lot, and consecrate to the divine service: the rest are called popular, or lay men, which meddle not with any function of the Church. 1 This word (say they) hath been used by all antiquity, and thereby Church Ministers only signified: Ergo, it is a fit and decent name, Bellar. lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 1. Rhemens. 1. Pet. 2.3 Ans. First, the Fathers used this name Clergy, but not as it is now used of the Papists, which do hereby as it were exclude the people of God from the Lords inheritance, counting them as Asses and Dogs, in respect of the Clergy: they used it as a civil indifferent name, for an outward distinction of their callings, not as a name of more holiness, and so we refuse it not. 2 What though by custom & continuance this name hath been somewhat abused, we will learn herein to speak of the scriptures, and not of men. Secondly, we mislike this name (say our adversaries) because we would have no difference between the people and Clergy, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. It is a great slander: because we make no such difference, as they do, as to make the Clergy only God's lot and portion, and to count the people as unholy, and to prefer every ignorant doltish Mass priest, before the best and devoutest of the people: therefore they imagine we make no difference at all. We do distinguish the calling of the one, and the other: none of the lay sort to be so hardy as to meddle with the word or Sacraments, which are committed to the Ministers, which you notwithstanding permit them to do: and the people every where to reverence their Pastors and to yield due obedience unto them. But that the calling of the one before God in itself, is more meritorious than the other, that we do not, neither dare affirm. 3 The Levites in the time of the law, were severed out from the rest of the Lords people, and he was their lot and inheritance, and they the Lords lot. Deut. 18.2. And as the Levites were then, so are the Ministers of the Gospel now. Bellarm. Ans. First, the Lord is rather said to be their lot, because they had the Lords portion, and lived of the Altar, than they are said to be the Lords lot: for the whole nation was holy unto God, and a kingdom of Priests, Exod. 19.6. Secondly, it followeth not, that because there was a legal and ceremonial difference then between the Priests and the people, that therefore it ought to be so now: Nay rather the contrary followeth, because there was such a difference then, that therefore the Priesthood of the law being ceased, there ought to be none such now: for Christ hath made us all Kings and Priests to God his father, Apocal. 1.6: And we are all a royal priesthood and holy nation, 1. Pet. 2.9. Now, though there be a difference of callings amongst men, yet before God we are all Priests alike, and there is but one Priest for us all to Godward, even Christ jesus our Lord. The Protestants. THe name of Clerks, or Clergy men, if it be not used as a name in itself of greater holiness and merit, and so is in effect a proud excluding of the rest of Christians from the Lords inheritance, we refuse it not, though there are better names and titles, to call the Ministers of the Gospel by: yet being taken as it is in Popery, we do utterly refuse and reject it. First, 1. Pet. 5.3. The Apostle exhorteth the pastors and teachers to feed the flock of Christ, non ut dominantes Cleris, not as Lords over God's Clergy & inheritance. Here S. Peter calleth the whole flock, the Clergy: wherefore it appeareth, that this difference was not known in the Apostles time of lay and Clergy men: And it is against all sense, that Saint Peter should understand here the inferior Ministers, and so exhorteth the superior Pastors and Bishops to look to their Clergy, as the Rhemists would have it: for S. Peter speaketh of the whole flock and congregation, which cannot be understood properly of many Ministers dispersed into several places. 2 Neither shall we find this word Clerus, the Clergy, properly applied to the Ministers, throughout the new testament, let our adversaries brag never so much of scripture as they do. Galat. 6.6. S. Paul useth these names of difference, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the teacher, and he that is taught: and 1. Corinth. 14.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the speaker, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the private or unlettered man. So that all their names are given in respect of their outward ministery and calling, not in regard of any difference before God. For before the Lord, as there is neither Grecian nor jew, bond nor free, Galat. 3.28. male nor female; so neither is there Clerk or lay man. 3 Augustine thus writeth concerning this name, Cleros, qui sunt in ecclesiastici ministerij gradibus ordinati, sic dictos puto, quia Mathias sort electus est, in Psal. 67. Clerks, which serve in the ministery, I think, were so called, because Mathias was chosen by lot. See then, they are not called Clerks because they are the Lords lot, but because they are allotted and chosen out of the people for that service: as the Levites are called the people's gift, Numbers 18.6. and the Priest's office an office of service: not of more merit or holiness, or an office of Lordly pre-eminence, but of ministery and service. Augustine therefore hath a notable saying: Non nos digni, qui pro vobis oremus, vos indigni, qui pro nobis oretis, Psal. 68 We are not only worthy to pray for you, and you unworthy to pray for us: Auditoribus suis, quibus verbum praedicavit, se commendavit Apostolus, ibid. The Apostle commendeth himself to their devout prayers, to whom he preached. By this their error is confuted, that think the prayer of a Priest to be the rather heard for the merit and dignity of his calling, howsoever else he be affected in his prayer. So the Rhemists say, that a prayer not understood profiteth by the virtue of the work wrought and the office of the Priesthood, Annot. 1. Corinth. 14. sect. 10. THE SECOND QUESTION, CONCERNING the election and institution of Bishops and Pastors. THis question hath two parts: First, of the election generally of Pastors and Ministers: Secondly, of the election of the Bishop of Rome. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE ELEction generally of all Bishops and Pastors. The Papists. error 67 THey say, that the election of Bishops neither belongeth to the Clergy, nor the people, but wholly appertaineth to the Bishop of Rome: as for the people, they have (they say) nothing at all to do in the election of their pastors, or ordaining of them, that neither their suffragium, consilium, or consensus, suffrage, counsel or consent is to be required, Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. cap. 7. & 8. 1 That the people are to be utterly excluded, thus they would prove it: Aaron was only elected of Moses, without consent of the people, so were the Apostles by our Saviour: Ergo, the people's consent is not required, Bellarm. Ans. Who seethe not, that there is great difference between ordinary and extraordinary callings? such as the calling of the Apostles was, and Aaron's at the first, though the office of the high Priest afterward became ordinary. Also it followeth not, the Apostles were chosen without consent of the people, when there were yet no faithful and Christian congregations, and because they were pastors of the whole world, Ergo, as well the people's consent may be wanting in the election of ordinary Bishops and Pastors, which have their peculiar & proper charges, and there being now many faithful and well instructed congregations. It is one thing to appoint Pastors for the Church not yet planted, & an other thing to constitute them in a Church already reform and instructed: for we read of nations that have been converted to the faith, by those that had no calling of the Church, as a great nation of the Indians was by Aedesius and Frumentinus, Ruffin. lib. 1.9. and the Iberians by a captive woman, Ruffian. 1.10. 2 The people cannot judge, who are fit to be pastors, and their elections are tumultuous, as we may read, how in the election of Damasus there were 137. persons slain, and therefore it is not meet, nor convenient, that the matter should be committed to the people, either to elect, or ordain: but whatsoever they did in times past, it was either by sufferance or negligence of the Bishops, Bellarmin. cap. 7. Ans. First, mere popular elections were never allowed in any well ordered Church, neither was the allowance of their pastors wholly referred to the people, neither did they bear the chief stroke, but the election was moderated by the wisdom and gravity of the Clergy, Fulk. Tit. 1. sect. 2. Secondly, the question is not between us, concerning the ordaining of pastors, for that belonged only to the Eldership, and was done by laying on of their hands, 1. Timoth. 4.14: but concerning the electing and choosing of them. Thirdly, neither do we dispute, whether it be convenient and necessary at all times, but whether it be lawful: for neither do we affirm, that it is of the essence and substance of the calling of ministers to be chosen by the voices of the people: as though they were no ministers, but usurpers and intruders that are not so called: Fulk. Act. 14.22. but whether it hath been at any time, & may yet be lawful, to require the consent of the people. Fourthly, it is false, that the people had this right by usurpation, or else sufferance of the Pastors: for Cyprian saith, it did, De divina authoritate descendere, lib. 1. Epistol. 4. That this custom was grounded upon divine authority, yea it was established by the laws of Kings: as there was a law made by Lodovicus Pius King of France, that Bishops should be ordained by the free election of the Clergy and the people, ex Ansigis. lib. 1. cap. 20. 3 Therefore (say they) elections of Bishops ought to be at the Pope's assignment: for unto Peter was committed the care of the universal Church, when he bad Peter feed his sheep. Hereupon they are bold to affirm, that we have neither true Bishops nor Ministers, because they are not lawfully sent, that is, as they interpret it, from the See Apostolic, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 3.8. Rhemist. Rom. 10. sect. 5. Answer: First, the charge given to Peter beareth no such sense: that because Christ bade him feed his sheep, therefore he and his successors should only have authority to consecrate Ministers: for if Peter had it by this grant, other Elders and Pastors had it in like sort, to whom it as well appertained to feed the flock of Christ, 1. Peter 5.2. And again, not Peter only, but the rest also of the Apostles did ordain and consecrate Pastors and Elders, as it shall be showed afterward. Secondly, neither is it a good reason to condemn our ministery, because it hath not the Pope's allowance: for every Church hath a lawful calling within itself, without sending to foreign Prelates for their approbation. And if you ask us by whom our Ministers were first called, seeing there were none but popish Bishops in every Church: we answer: that some had their calling in the Popish Church, which afterward being more effectually called of GOD, became profitable teachers of the Gospel. Neither is it necessary, that the Church should always be bound to an ordinary calling; when as the state of the Church is so corrupted, and the government thereof, that no good calling can be obtained: for then the Lord raiseth up some extraordinarily for the reformation of the Church, such as we doubt not, but Luther was. In which and the like cases, the ordinary imposition of hands by the Pastors of the Church, being heretics and idolaters, as it was in time of Popery, is not to be expected or stayed for, Plura apud Fulk. annot. Rom. 10. sect. 5. The Protestants. COncerning election or choice to be made by the people, we are to put three cases. First, mere popular elections, wherein the people by multitude of voice should carry all away, are in no case, nor at any time to be allowed. Secondly, for the people to give their voice in elections, which are moderated and governed by the grave and wise Pastors and Elders, it hath been used in times past, and may be again, and is in some places, where the state of the Church, the condition and quality of the people will bear it. Thirdly, though the people neither bear sway in the election, nor give their suffrages and voices, yet it is convenient and requisite, that their consent should be had, and public testimony: for the Ministers should be such as have a good report of all, 1. Timoth. 3.7. Fulk. Act. 14. sect. 3. But as for the Pope, let him keep himself, as a Bishop in his own Diocese, he hath nothing to do with ordaining or electing of Ministers in other Churches. 1 Numb. 20.27. Eleazar was made Priest in Aaron's place, in the sight of all the congregation: Ergo, Ministers ought to be ordained publicly in the sight of the congregation: not in corners or private places, as they used to do in time of Popery: yea it is recorded of Pope john the 13. that he ordained Deacons in a stable. And herein they offended manifestly against their own rules: for their decree is, Nullus invitis detur Episcopus, Ex Celestin pap. distin. 63. cap. cleri. sed Cleri & plebis consensus & desiderium requiratur: Let no Bishop be thrust upon any against their wills, but let the consent and desire of the people and Clergy be known. 2 We have the example of the Apostles, Act. 1. & 6. & 14.23. When Mathias was elected, the whole multitude was called together: and Act. 6. the Deacons were chosen by the whole multitude: Ergo, the people had an interest in times passed in the election of Church officers: and this example of the Apostles may safely and lawfully be followed of the Church, when time and place serveth. Bellarmine answereth: First, the election of Deacons and Pastors is not all one, neither is there the like reason. Ans. They are both public officers for the good of the Church, and therefore if the people have any interest in the one, why not in the other? Secondly, this was done by the grant and sufferance of the Apostles. Ans. Yea the Apostles called them together, but by the direction of the holy Ghost: as Act. 15. when the Church was assembled together upon another occasion, it is said, It seemed good to us and the holy Ghost. Again, in the election, beside imposition of hands, prayer was used, which was a chief part of that action: but the people had their interest in public prayers, as being part of the congregation, and were not admitted thereunto at the pleasure and will of men: wherefore it is not true, that it was a mere grant of men, that the people might be present at elections, but it so seemed good to the Apostles thereto directed by the spirit of God. 3 But as for the right of elections in the Pope, it hath no show of reason: for be it that Peter had only the right of consecration amongst the Apostles, you do but flatter yourselves in thinking, that whatsoever right was in Peter, it must needs be in the Pope: for he is not Peter's successor, as we have showed before at large. But we will hold you rather to this point: that all the Apostles had as full right to ordain and consecrate by laying on of hands, as Peter had. Look Act. 6.6. & Act. 13.3. & Act. 14.23. And if the Pope cannot have all that which Peter had, much less can he be capable of that which Peter never had. 4 We have had good experience in England, of the Pope's great discretion and wisdom, in collation of spiritual preferments, and ordaining of Bishops. About anno 1253. the Pope wrote a very imperious and commanding letter to the good Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grostede, Fox. p. 323. to bestow a Canonship in Lincoln upon his nephew, a boy: for so Popes call their bastards: but he suffered the repulse for that time. In the time of Edward the 3. and Richard the 2. a certificate was sent up into the Chancery, of such Ecclesiastical dignities, as were possessed by strangers not inhabiting the land: and there were found above forty Deaneries, Archdeaconries and Prebends, and those not the worst, some worth one hundred, some two hundred, nay, some four hundred pound by the year, the Archdeaconry of Canturburie was valued at seven hundred Florence's by the year, which a Cardinal of Rome had: And there were above a dozen Cardinals resiant at Rome, Fox. p. 429. that had at once the best and richest dignities in the land: beside a great sort of Italian priests, and others, that were beneficed in England. By this it may appear, what good choice the Pope-holy father of Rome was wont to make in bestowing Church dignities: and it were pity but he should have the ordering of them still, he did so well dispose of them when he had them. 5 Let Augustine speak, who growing now old, was desirous to know his successor while he lived: he went not to Rome for the matter: but assembling the Church together at Hippo where he was Bishop; in the presence of two Bishops beside, and seven Presbyters or Elders, Astante clero & frequenti populo, the whole Clergy, and a great sort of people standing by: Augustine himself began first and said, Presbyterum Eradium mihi successorem volo: I would have Eradius presbyter to be my successor. Afterward, hearing how the people did approve and like of his motion, he desired them to subscribe to that which was done, Rogo ut dignemini gestis subscribere, qui potestis. And when they held their peace, he urged them further, saying, Hic mihi responsione vestra opus est, de hac assensione aliquid acclamate: I must needs have you make some answer, and testify your consent by your acclamation: A populo acclamatum est, fiat, fiat, dictum vicies quinquies: The people cried out, let it be as thou hast said, let it be, and this was repeated five and twenty times, Augustin. epistol. 110. By this example it appeareth, though the people made not the choice, yet their consent was demanded. And thus a Bishop was elected, and no word sent up to Rome at all. Neither was it the custom of the Church so to do in those days: for whereas the Donatists objected against Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, because he stayed not to be ordained of the chief Bishop of Numidia, Vt princeps Episcopus a principe ordinaretur: That one chief Bishop might be ordained of an other. Augustine answered, that there was another custom of the Catholic Church, Vt non Numidiae, sed propinquiores Episcopi, Episcopum ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinarent: Brevicul. collation. 2. cap. 5. That not the Bishop of Numidia, but those Bishops that were nearest at hand, should ordain the Bishop of Carthage. So we see, they were not only bold to choose an inferior Bishop, as was Eradius of Hippo, without the Pope's consent: but they would adventure to ordain a chief Metropolitan Bishop even of Carthage, without the Pope's leave. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the election of the Pope. THey say, that the surest and safest way and simply the best, is that which is error 68 now used, to choose the Pope by, namely by the College of the Cardinals: That whosoever is by two parts of the said Cardinals elected, is rightly the successor of Saint Peter, and the undoubted Pope of Rome. 1 None can better judge who is fittest for the papacy, Argum. than they which are the Pope's Counsellors, and know the affairs of the Church. Ergo, the Cardinals the meetest men. Answer: First, you take that for granted, which we instantly deny, that the Cardinals of Rome are always the wisest and most learned: as though a Cardinal's hat doth bring with it such abundance of virtue and learning: nay a title of a Cardinalship is sooner obtained by favour than desert, by masses of money, than weight of learning: And good reason, seeing that the Cardinals make a gain of the papacy: For an Ass loaden with gold shall sooner enter into the Castle of Saint Angel, than any other coming with a cart load of books: they that read Cardinal Wolseyes' instructions sent to Stephen Gardiner at Rome, what great promises of money and preferment, may easily understand the disposition of the Pope-holy Electors of Rome: Seeing they make a gain of the Pope, why should not he set Cardinalships to sale? Fox. p. 992. for if jacobus Archbishop of Mentz paid 27000. florences for his pall, what think you a Cardinal's hat is to be valued at, which is a higher degree, Fox. p. 794. than either Bishop or Archbishop? We say then, that there may be wiser and more learned men of the Clergy in Rome then the Cardinals: and that the whole Clergy may better judge, than a few ambitious Cardinals, and are freer from corruption. 2 They are not fit, not concerning the affairs of the Church, for Bishops are like to know better, what appertaineth to the office of a Bishop, than priests and Deacons, as most of the Cardinals are. 2 It appeareth by the continuance to be the best: Argum. for it hath now endured four hundred years: and by the effect, for the See of Rome hath never been freer from Schisms, then since this order was taken for the Pope's election, Bellarmin. cap. 9 Answer: First, how can it be of such long continuance, seeing by your own confession, it exceedeth not four hundred years? Nay who will not grant, that the ancient order of electing the Bishop of Rome by the whole Clergy, and consent of the people of Rome, with the confirmation of the Emperor, which lasted a thousand years, till this new device came in place, was far more ancient and durable? Secondly, how well the Cardinal's election hath kept the See of Rome from Schism, experience of former times teacheth us: In pope Vrbanus time the 6. there were two pope's many years together: and one did so deadly pursue the other, that Pope Vrbane at once cut off five of the Cardinal's heads: might they not have great joy, think you, in choosing such a Pope? In the time of Pope john the 23. there were three Popes at once. In the Council of Basile Pope Eugenius was deposed, Fox p. 434. and counted an heretic. And yet for all this, the Cardinals are the only preservers and maintainers of the peace of the Apostolic See. The Protestants. THough it do not greatly concern us, what manner of election is used at Rome: (for unto us the election of the meanest Bishop in the land is as much, yea and more, than the glorious enthronizing of the Pope:) Yet it shall not be amiss briefly to show, how these great antiquaries are become enemies of antiquity, refusing the ancient manner of election, which was used in Rome for a 1000 years together, namely, that the Bishop there should be elected by the whole Clergy, with the consent of the people and confirmation of the Emperor. 1 It is a plain case, that till the year 685. in all their elections they waited for the authority of the chief Magistrate, the Emperor, or the deputy of Italy. But than came in the constitution of Constantine the 4 that their elections should be firm without the consent of the Emperor. Yet for all this constitution, anno. 810. Pope Adriane gave unto Carolus magnus full authority to elect the Bishop of Rome: and anno. 961. Leo the 9 made the same grant to Otho first German Emperor. This continued in force till Alexander the 2. his time, who was elected first without the Emperor's consent, but afterward repenting of it, he protested openly, that he would be no longer Pope unless he had the emperors consent, and thereupon he was deposed by Hildebrand, and thrown into prison. This was more than a 1000 years after Christ: since that time the Emperor hath been excluded, and shut out from their elections. But all this while notwithstanding, though the Emperor's consent sometime was not necessary, yet the Clergy of Rome, and the people retained their ancient privilege still. So we see by this new erection of the College of Cardinals, Fox. p. 4.6. there is great injury offered to three estates, the Emperor, the Clergy of Rome, the people. 2 This new form of election hath not stood continually in force, since it was first founded. For in the Council of Constance sess. 40. they proceeded to the election of a new Pope, not staying for the rest of the Cardinals, but appointing other electors in their room. In the Council of Basile, the Duke of Savoy was elected Pope, by other electors, than Cardinals: Nay there was but one Cardinal, namely, Arolatensis, the rest were Bishops, Doctors and others. And though they will say perchance that this Pope was chosen in a schism, for they hold the Council of Basile to be schismatical: yet they can not, neither do deny, but that Pope Martin the 5. who was chosen at Constance, was rightfully Pope. 3 In Augustine's time the rest of the Bishops of Italy near unto Rome, should seem to have 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 Metropolitan, but by the Bishop of Ostia that is near at hand, Brevicul. collation. lib. 2. cap. 5. THE THIRD QUESTION CONCERNING THE degrees and orders of ecclesiastical 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 Clergy. THE FIRST PART OF THE SEVEN degrees or orders Ecclesiastical. The Papists. THough they have divers degrees of dignity in the Church, as Popes, Cardinals, patriarchs, Primates, and such like: yet they make but seven error 69 Ecclesiastical orders, which are conferred solemnly by certain rites and ceremonies by their Bishops: And they are these, Ostiarij, doorkeepers, Exorcistae, Exorcists, Lectores, Readers, Acolythi, Attenders, Subdiaconi, Subdeacons', Diaconi, Deacons, and the highest degree, Sacerdotes, Priests; unto the which all the other are but rises and steps. All these they maintain to be Ecclesiastical orders, and to be retained in the Church, Bellarm. cap. 11. Rhemist. 1. Tim. 3. sect. 7. They have no proof nor warrant out of scripture, for these frivolous orders, but only a show of antiquity, as they allege certain Canons out of the 4. Council of Carthage, where such offices are reckoned up, Rhemist. ibid. Answer: First, to let pass this, that the Council may be suspected for the credit thereof, seeming wholly to be patched out of the Pope's decrees. Secondly, we deny not but they had such offices, as Readers, to read the text of the scriptures, exorcists to cast out devils, which was an extraordinary gift for that time, Acoluthists, young men appointed to attend upon the Bishop for their better instruction: Doorkeepers, that kept the entry of the Church that no heathen person or excommunicate should enter. But these were both divers offices, then are now appointed for them in the popish Church: for they make them now, all or the most ministers and servitors for the idolatrous service of the Mass, which in those days was not heard of: neither though there were such offices and services in the Church, were they made orders and degrees of the ministery. 3 They had other offices beside, which now are not in use, no not amongst the papists: for they had also singers, labourers, confessors, diggers or Sextons: so that if you will make all those offices used in time passed in the Church, so many orders of the ministry, you must make ten or eleven: more, than you do acknowledge, or use in your Church, Fulk. annot. 1. Tim. 3. sect. 7. The Protestants. THe question is not between us and our adversaries in this place, concerning the titles and dignities annexed to the ministery, as of Bishops, Archdeacon's, Deans, Provosts, but of the several orders of the Ministry: For Bishops and other ministers do not differ in order, but in office of government: They hold that there are seven several such orders, which have their several rites of consecration, and peculiar offices in the Church allotted them. But we content ourselves with those orders only and degrees as necessary, which the holy scripture hath commended, Fulk. ibid. 1 As for the names and offices of Subdeacons', Readers, Exorcists, Acolythi, doorkeepers, we have no such warrant out of the scripture, to make them orders of the Church: and therefore we condemn them. All necessary orders for the edifying & building of the Church, the scripture hath prescribed us, Eph. 4.11. there are all offices set down needful for the doctrine, instruction, & edifying of the Church: Fulk. Ephes. 4. sect. 4. Wherefore away with these popish orders, invented by men. But as for unable offices and services, which shall be thought meet for the affairs and business of the Church, they may be retained and kept, but not as new orders of the ministery. 2 These offices are first Idolatrous, as they are now used among the papists, for the Deacons, Subdeacons', Acolythi, were to attend upon the Priest at Mass. Secondly, some of their offices were ridiculous, as to sweep the Church, to drive out dogs, and to hold a fly-flap of peacock's feathers, to keep the flies from falling into the communion cup. Clemens constitut. lib. 8. cap. 15 Thirdly, they were distinguished, by ridiculous ornaments & attire, which were proper to every one of them: as it shall appear now in their description. From the Priest when he was disgraded, they took the Chalice, patine, and host, that he should have no power any more to offer sacrifice: they scraped his nails with a piece of glass, and so took away his anointing: and lastly, they took away his priestly ornaments, the Che●ile, which signified charity, the Stole, that represented the sign of our Lord. Fron the Deacons in their disgradation, they took first the book of the Gospels, and so all power to read the Gospels: Then they took away his Dalmatic a sign of his levitical office, and the white Stole behind his back that signified innocency. From the Subdeacon they took the book of the Epistles, that he should have no more power to read them, also the empty Chalice, and Subdeacons' vesture: his office was to serve 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 bottles: and in his degradation there was taken from him, an empty flagon or bottle, and a candlestick, with a wax candle put out. The order of exorcism was taken away, by depriving him from power to read in the book of exorcisms. From the Reader they took the book of Church lectures or lessons. Last of all, from the doorkeeper was taken the keys of the Church: And so was he deprived of all power to open or shut the Church doors, and to ring the bells. Ex Fox pag. 2134. Thus we see, how much these offices are degenerate from the ancient use: First, they are all but Ministers and attendants for the abominable sacrifice of the mass, which in those days was not known, for the Acoluthus or waiter waiteth upon the Subdeacon, the Subdeacon upon the Deacon, and all of them upon the Priest at Mass. Secondly, whereas then the Exorcists had a peculiar grace of God to cast out devils: their Exorcists do but read certain exorcisms in books, their Readers only read the text of scripture: now they read the legends of popish saints. Then in time of persecution, when Christians assembled in the night, the waiters had the charge to light the candles, but now they do light them at noon day. 3 These offices have not been in use these many years among the papists themselves: for many times the Sexton or his boy, do execute the charge both of Acolites, Ostiaries and Readers, yea of Deacons and Subdeacons' also, when the Priest with his boy can dispatch a Mass. Neither are these orders retained amongst them, for any especial service or office, but only as preparatories, and steps and degrees to the priesthood, Fulk. annot. 1. Timoth. 3. sect. 7. THE SECOND PART OF THE DIFFErence of Bishops and other Ministers. The Papists. WE differ from them in two points: First, they say, that Bishops are not only in a higher degree of superiority to other Ministers, but they are as Princes of the Clergy, and other Ministers as subjects, and in all things to be commanded by them. Secondly, they affirm that Bishops are only properly Pastors, and that to them only it doth appertain to preach, and that other Ministers have no authority without their licence or consent, to preach at all, and that not principally or chiefly, but solely and wholly to them appertaineth the right of consecrating and giving orders. For the first, for the princely authority of Bishops, whom they would have obeyed in all things; they wrested these and such like places of scripture: as 2. Cor. 1.9. I writ unto you, to know whether you will be obedient in all things, Ergo, they must be absolutely obeyed. Answer: the Apostle challengeth only obedience in such things, as he should command agreeable to God's word, for if I myself (saith he) preach another Gospel, hold me accursed, Galat. 1. Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 2. sect. 3. 2 Against an Elder receive no accusation under two or three witnesses, 1. Tim. 5.19. Ergo, the authority of Bishops is absolute and princelike: Videmus Episcopum judicem esse presbyterorum, proinde verum principem, we see the Bishop is the judge of the Elders, Ergo, a prince over them, Bellarm cap. 14. Answer: First, it followeth not, Bishops have jurisdiction and authority over other Ministers, Ergo, they are princes over them. Can there be no pre-eminence and superiority in the Church, but it must needs be princelike? Is every judge a prince over those, which are brought before him to be judged? 2. Timothy had no such princelike authority, for here it is restrained & limited, a rule is set down by the Apostle which he must observe: Ergo, his authority was not absolute. Thirdly, Saint Paul was so far off from making Timothy a prince in the Church at Ephesus, that he would rather have him not to rebuke, but to exhort the Elders as fathers, the younger men as brethren, cap. 5.1. Where now is his princely authority become, whereas he maketh his subjects (as our adversaries call inferior Ministers) his fathers and brethren? For the second, the Apostles properly had the preaching of the word committed unto them, Act. 6. For other were chosen to attend upon tables: the Apostles also only had the right of laying on of hands, Act. 14.23. Ergo, It is proper only to Bishops to preach, and to ordain, who are the Apostles successors, Bellarmin. Answer: First, Bellarmine denieth that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, de pontifice lib. 4.25. because he would magnify the Pope his ghostly father above all Bishops: but now forgetting himself, he saith, Episcopi propriè succedunt Apostolis, Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, cap. 14. & so by this reason every Bishop hath as full authority as the Pope. Secondly, Fulk annot. john 20. sect. 3. every godly & faithful Bishop is a successor to the Apostles, we deny it not, & so are all faithful and godly pastors & Ministers: for Christ prayeth for them all indifferently, having first prayed for his Apostles, john 17.20. I pray not for these alone, saith our Saviour, but for all them which shall believe in me through their word. Thirdly, at that time when the Deacons were elected, the congregation was at jerusalem, neither were there as yet any other Pastors ordained, & therefore the Apostles only attended upon preaching of the word: but afterward when they had ordained Pastors in other Churches, to them also fully was committed the word of reconciliation, Ephes. 4.11. Christ hath given some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and teachers: So that Pastors & teachers, though ordained first by the Apostles, yet had their calling of God, and together in their calling, authority and commission to preach, neither being once ordained, needed they to expect any further licence from the Apostles. And as for the right of ordaining and imposition of hands, though it were chief in the Apostles, yet the Pastors and Elders together with them laid on their hands, Act. 13.4. Yea the Rhemists confess as much, that when a Priest is to be ordered, the rest of the Priests together with the Bishop do lay on their hands, Annotat. 1. Timoth. 4.18. What doth this else signify, but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop? The law also must be changed, Heb. 7.12. that is, the manner and form of the priesthood. But we easily see your drift: you would gladly have us like of this argument, that in stead of a high Priest in the law, you might bring a Pope into the Church. The Protestants. FIrst, though we do admit, that for avoiding of schism, the Church hath thought it meet, there should be difference in degree and a superiority among Ministers, yet your princely dominion which you do urge, in no wise must be admitted. 1 It is contrary to the rule of Christ. Luk. 22.25. the Kings of the nations are Lords over them, and they that have authority over them, are called benefactors: Here our Saviour speaketh not of tyrannical dominion (for how could tyrants be benefactors?) but forbiddeth, that there should be any such princelike and pompous pre-eminence among ecclesiastical persons, as there is among secular and civil governors: A superiority may be granted, but not as the Prince is over his subjects: it was so in time of popery, that the people were half subjects to the Prince and half subjects to their spiritual governors: But though we acknowledge other ecclesiastical fathers and pastors, yet we are subjects only to our prince. 2 Saint Peter also is flat against this princely rule and dominion, Feed the flock, saith he, not as Lords over God's heritage, but that you may be ensamples, 1. Pet. 5.3. But are not they, I pray you, Lords over the flock, that challenge to be princes? Secondly, concerning the power of preaching, we affirm, that every pastor once ordained, hath sufficient authority to preach in his own flock and charge, Fox. p. 454. as john Husse notably proved to their face out of a certain gloze in the fift book of the decretals, that when as the Bishop ordaineth any Priest, he giveth him also therewithal authority to preach. We deny not, but when there is just occasion, this authority maybe restrained by the Church governors, and so also may an evil Minister be suspended from his whole ministery: But the power before spoken of, he hath at his first receiving of orders: We thus show it. Whatsoever belongeth to the office of a Minister set over a flock or charge, he receiveth the power thereof when he is ordained: But to preach the word, belongeth to the office of such: for preaching is properly the feeding of the people. But see the absurdity of the papists: they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach, but only to have power to sacrifice the body of Christ: But it is proper to the Bishop, say they, to preach. We answer: First, than the Bishop is properly the pastor of every flock and congregation in his diocese, for he that properly feedeth, is properly the Pastor: And he that is properly the Pastor, hath the charge of souls properly, yea more, then hath the particular Pastor: for he is improperly their Pastor, but as it were the Bishop's substitute and Vicar: But what Bishop in the world is able to bear so great a burden, to have the especial and proper charge of all the souls in his diocese? It is not to be denied, but he hath a charge of their souls, as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subjects: but to say he is the proper Pastor, and hath the proper & principal charge of souls in teaching and feeding of them (for the question is now of preaching, not of governing) who is able to abide it? Secondly, but our Rhemists tell us another tale, that many that are not able to preach, are meet enough to be Bishops, 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 13. Ergo, it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach. I pray you then, for whom is it proper? if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors, then for none. Thirdly, they make but seven orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers, and the priesthood is the chief: for a Bishop and a priest make but one order, as Bellarmin. confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach: for seeing it is not proper to the priest, none of the inferior orders can challenge it. See then what goodly orders these are, which leave the very chief part of the ministry undone, which is the preaching of the word. I think their meaning is, that this preaching is not so necessary a duty, but may be well spared in the Church. 2 That which a man is bound to do under pain of the curse of GOD, that he may lawfully perform in due order without the leave of men: but a woe is laid upon them that preach not the Gospel, where they are bound, 1. Cor. 9.16. Fox. p. 453 Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi. 3 A man is bound to give corporal alms to the poor, the needy, the hungry, the thirsty, neither is he to crave leave of any: Ergo, much more to teach the ignorant, to comfort the weak, and do other duties appertaining to his charge, Argum. Wicliffi. Concerning the power of giving orders: As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his hands, 2. Timoth. 1.6. so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership: 1. Timoth, 4.14. And the Rhemists upon that place mislike not the practice of the Church, that their Priests do lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained. So that by this it is manifest, that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folly belong unto the Bishop, seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise, or the Bishop in the name of the rest, Fulk. annot. Tit. 1. sect. 2. So that the Elders were not excluded. THE THIRD PART, CONCERNING THE office and title of Cardinals. The Papists. BEllarmine would feign have the office of Cardinals, as ancient as the Apostles error 72 times: and the name to be worthily appropriated to the See of Rome, that as the Pope himself by his prudence and holiness, is, tanquam cardo Ecclesiae, to the Church as the hingle to the door, upon the which it is turned and borne up: so his Counsellors and assistants should be called Cardinals, having the care of the Universal Church: but the jesuite, beside some vain show of moth-worn antiquity, hath not one good argument to prove the name, and office of Cardinals, to be either ancient or commendable. Then especial office, as they are Cardinals, is to elect and choose the Pope, and to be assistant unto him in Counsel, for the government of the universal Church, Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants. THat neither the name of Cardinals, as proper to Rome, is ancient, nor their office, or either of them lawful or commendable, but usurped and Antichristian, thus briefly it is showed. 1 In Augustine's time it was a common name, usually applied, both in the good and evil part, to chief and principal men of any place, or sect: as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists, Cardinals' Donatistas', Cardinal or captain Donatists: de baptism. lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely, if it than had been only due to the assistants of the Roman Bishop, Augustine had been much to blame to apply the name to Heretics. 2 Augustine thus writeth to Hierome, Quamues secundum honorum vocabula, saith he, Episcopatus presbyterio maior sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustin. Hieronim. minor est. Though according to the custom of the Church, a Bishop be greater than a Priest, yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Hierome a Priest. Now Hierome was a Priest of Rome, and a Cardinal, as our adversaries say, Epistol. 19 and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gown and habit of a Cardinal: yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him, though for his great learning he putteth himself behind him. 3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome, qui duce stultitia, saith he, diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit: who being led or carried away with folly, Quaest vet. & nou. Testa. 101. did go about to make Deacons equal unto Priests. Is not the same folly now generally practised in Rome, or a greater? for they do not only prefer Cardinal Deacons before Priests, but even before Bishops and Archbishops: in Augustine's time, this was counted a great folly. 4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope, we have showed before, quest. 2. part. 2. that it is of no great antiquity: and that it is injurious to three estates, to the Emperor, who was wont to confirm the election, to the Clergy of Rome, who had in times past interest in the election, and to the people, whose consent was also in time passed required: But now all these are excluded, and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals. THE FOURTH QUESTION CONCERNING the Keys of the Church, committed for the execution to the pastors and governors thereof. THis question hath four parts. First, wherein the authority of the keys consisteth: secondly, to whom they are committed: thirdly, whether there is absolute power of binding and losing in the Church, or ministerially only: four, whether they that have the dispensation of the Keys, do always necessarily bind and lose before God: of these in order. THE FIRST PART, WHEREIN THE AVthoritie and power of the Keys consisteth. The Papists. error 73 BY the Keys and power of binding and losing, they chief and principally understand the censures of the Church, as Excommunications, Anathematisms, suspensions, Degradations, & the whole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Rhemist. Annot. Matt. 16. sect. 14. Bel. lib. 1. de pontiff. cap. 13. Secondly, they tie remission and retaining of sins to their imagined and devised sacrament of penance, saying, that where Christ gave authority to remit sins to his Apostles, john 20.23. he instituted the sacrament of penance, Rhemist. john 20. sect. 3. The sacrifice also and Sacraments of the Church, say they, are ministered for remission of sins, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 5. sect. 3. Thirdly, they seem to grant in words, that by preaching also of the Gospel, sins are retained, and remitted, ibid. but they make small account thereof: for as we have heard, they make it not of the essence of their priesthood to preach, neither doth it properly appertain unto that office: yea, say they, absolution cannot be rightly sought for at the priests hands, but by confession of our sins, which is done in penance. Rhem. joh. 20. sect. 5. This then is their opinion, that by their devised ceremony and Sacrament of penance, sins are properly forgiven, and that the preaching of the word is not thereto necessary. Their chief argument is, by abusing that place, john 20.23. where they say Christ instituted the Sacrament of penance, when he gave power to his Apostles to remit and retain sins. Ans. First, your Sacrament of Penance, is neither grounded upon this, nor any other place of scripture: here in the words of Christ there is no institution of a sacrament, because there is no visible element given, whereunto the word 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. john 20. sect. 3. The Protestants. THe Keys of the Church, that is, the power to bind and lose sinners, to open or shut unto them the kingdom of God, consisteth both in the external discipline and government of the Church lawfully executed according to the word of God, as also in preaching of the Gospel, by assuring in Christ's name all faithful and penitent persons remission and forgiveness of their sins, and in denouncing and threatening the wrath of God against the disobedient and impenitent: also as the sacraments are joined to the word, as seals and pledges of the promises thereof, so by the right administration of the sacraments together with the preaching of the word, sins are retained or remitted. The Rhemists therefore do us great injury, in falsely charging of us, that we should hold that the spiritual power of the Church standeth only upon the preaching of the word, whereas we grant, that it is exercised also in the Ecclesiastical government of the Church, both in punishing, excommunicating & censuring of offenders, which is the binding of them, and in releasing and absolving them again, which is the other power of losing: Rhemist. 2. Corinth. cap. 10. sect. 1. Leaving now this part of spiritual power in Ecclesiastical discipline, which is not in this place in question between us, we must touch that other part, which is exercised in the word and sacraments. 1 That the sacraments do bind and lose, it is proved out of the word of God: they do bind, Whosoever eateth & drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh his own damnation, 1. Cor. 11.29. they do also lose, As oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lords death, till he come, vers. 26. But here is a double caution and condition to be annexed. First, that all Sacraments work not this effect, but only those of Christ's institution, which are but two, baptism and the supper of the Lord: for Paul saith, I have received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you, 1. Cor. 11.23. If the Apostles would not, neither might deliver any Sacraments, but those which were instituted of Christ, what great presumption is it in any other to do it? Secondly, we must not think, that remission of sins is necessarily tied to the Sacraments, as though there could be no remission without them, for the grace of remission may be effectual in the name of Christ, by the preaching of the word without a sacrament, joh. 20. sect. 4. Ful. For the word may be preached without a sacrament, but the sacrament cannot be ministered without the word: for that were as though a man should deliver a seal without a writing. Neither is it our meaning, that as the Rhemists cavil with us, the sacrament cannot be administered without a sermon of the death of Christ: for though that were always to be wished, yet where it cannot be had, there must and aught to be a brief showing and declaration of the death of Christ out of the word, so oft as the Sacrament is administered, as it is observed in our Church. Fulk. Annot. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 15. 3 We must take heed, we conceive not thus, as though the Sacrament gave grace by the work wrought, and that by the very use, form, and external act of the Sacrament we obtain remission of sins, as the Rhemists would bear us in hand, 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 15. But the Sacraments are only effectual to the worthy receivers, and to the worthy receiving, faith is requisite, as Saint Paul willeth all men to examine themselves, 1. Corinth. 11.28. which is, as he himself interpreteth it, to prove whether they be in the faith, 2. Corinth. 13.5. These conditions then being observed, we deny not, but that there is an exercise of the keys even in the Sacraments. 2 But chiefly and principally, is this power dispensed by the preaching of the word, as Saint Paul saith, We are the savour of death unto death, unto some: there is the binding: and to other the savour of life unto life: there is the losing, 1. Corinth. 2.16. So our Saviour Christ saith, He that refuseth me, the word that I have spoken, shall judge him in the last day, john. 12.48. Here is the power of binding: Again, the truth shall make you free, john 8.32. Here is the power of losing. Who therefore doubteth this, that the preaching of the word is the most proper and principal way and mean, for the exercising of this Ecclesiastical power? for seeing faith is the key of heaven, thereby we have free access unto the throne of grace, Rom. 5.2. and faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10.17. and hearing by the word: It remaineth that by the word the keys are dispensed. Augustine also subscribeth unto this: for speaking of reformation of life and repentance with remission of former sins, thus he saith, Quid empturus es ut facias, quae emplastra quaesiturus? ecce cùmloquor, muta cor, & factum est, quod tam saepe & tam diu clamatur, ut fiat. in Psal. 63. What medicine or plaster wilt thou buy to heal thy sin? Behold even now, while I preach unto thee, change thy heart, and it is already done, which we so often call upon you to be done: See then by the preaching of the word our heart is changed, our life amended, and our sin remitted. THE SECOND PART, TO WHOM THE authority of the keys is committed. The Papists. error 74 THe authority and power of excommunication, say they, is not in the whole Church, but only in the Prelates: neither was the power of binding and losing given unto the whole church: but in their own name, not in the name or right of the Church, do the pastors and Prelates exercise this power, Remist. 2. 1. Corinth. 5. sect. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 7. The Church is said to bind and lose, because the Prelates do bind & lose, as a man is said to speak, and see, though he only speak with the tongue, and see with the eyes. 1 They seem to prove it by S. Paul's example, 1. Corinth. 5. I absent in body but present in spirit have decreed: S. Paul useth here his Apostolic power, in sending his letters and Mandatum, to have the incestuous person excommunicate: Ergo, the right was in him and not in the Church, and so consequently in the Bishops his successors. Ans. First, S. Paul sendeth no Mandatum, but showeth his Apostolic power, in decreeing the incestuous person worthy of excommunication, and requiring the same to be executed by the Church, Fulk. 1. Corin. 5. sec. 2. Secondly, though Paul gave the sentence, yet was it done both in the power of Christ and the name of the whole Church: for he had decreed only that he should be excommunicate: it was not actually done: but to the due performing thereof there is required, the congregating of the Church in Christ's name, the presence of Paul in spirit by his apostolic power, & that it should be done in the name of Christ. Al this showeth, that Paul gave sentence in the name of the whole Church. 2 Paul (they say) by the pre-eminent power of his ministery, pardoneth the incestuous person whom he had excommunicate, Rhemist. argument. in 1. ad Corinth. Ans. The text is plain, that he consenteth the Church should pardon him, 2. Corinth. 2.10. To whom you forgive any thing I forgive also. Hear not Paul only, but the whole Church pardoneth, Fulk. ibid. 3 The jesuits simile may be returned upon his own head: for as the eye and tongue in the body are but instruments of the life and power of the soul, which quickeneth the whole body: so the governors of the Church do execute the discipline of the Church by the spirit of Christ, which is given to the whole body. The Protestants. THe authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church, although the execution and judgement thereof, to avoid confusion, be committed to the governors of the Church which exercise that authority, as in the name of Christ, so in the name of the whole Church, Fulk. totidem verbis, annot. 1. Cor. 5. sect. 3. 1 Math. 18.17. If he will not hear thee tell the Church: this place proveth, that although the exercising of the keys be referred to the governors of the Church; yet the authority and right is in the whole Church: for the keys were given to the whole Church. The pastors and governors, though they be excellent and principal members of the Church, yet are they improperly called the Church, Argument. Illyrici. 2 We conclude the same also out of S. Paul's words, 1. Cor. 2.21. All things are yours, whether Paul, Apollo's, or Cephas, whether things present, or things to come, and ye are Christ's, and Christ Gods: Ergo, whatsoever power is in the Church, it is the Churches, not only the common use and the benefit thereof, (because it may be answered, that although the keys be only granted to the Prelates, yet they use them to the good of the Church) but the right also and possession thereof, even as the Church is the inheritance and proper possession of Christ. 3 Augustine consenteth: Ecclesia, quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro. Tract. in johann. 124. The Church, which is founded upon Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: But the whole Church, and not only the Pastors, is founded and builded upon Christ: Ergo. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE PASTORS of the Church have any absolute power to remit sins, otherwise, then as Ministers only. The Papists. error 75 THey spare not to say, that Priests have full right to remit sins, and are not ministers only thereof and dispensers, but have full power as Christ had, and he that doubteth of their right herein, may as well doubt whether Christ had authority as man to remit sins, Rhemist. annot. john 20. sect. 3. And again, they call it an express power and commission, yea a wonderful power which is given unto Priests to remit sins, and therefore it followeth necessarily, that men should submit themselves to their judgement, for release of their sins, Annot. john 20. sect. 5. 1 They reason thus out of our saviours own words, john 20.21. As my father hath sent me, so I send you. He showeth his father's commission given to himself, and then in plain terms most amply imparteth the same to his Apostles: But Christ had full right to remit sins: Ergo, also the Apostles and their successors: for they have the same power that Christ had, Rhemist. annot. john 20. sect. 3. Ans. First, it is great presumption, and spoken without any ground, to say, that Christ, by sending his Apostles into the world, gave them as full, large, and ample commission, as he himself had: for neither the Pope, in whom remaineth, as they say, the Apostolic authority, by their own confession, can do all that Christ did, as to ordain and institute Sacraments: and Christ (say they) might forgive sins without the Sacraments, which the Pope cannot do, and so consequently neither the Apostles, whose full jurisdiction he hath, in this behalf, Bellarm. de pontiff. lib. 5. cap. 4. Secondly, the power therefore here granted to the Apostles, is in the name of Christ, to declare and pronounce remission of sins, according to the will of God, not properly in their own power to release or absolve sinners. 2 He breathed upon them, and gave them the holy Ghost, vers. 22. Therefore he that denieth the Priest's authority to forgive sins, he must deny the holy Ghost to be God, and not to have power to remit sins, Rhem. ibid. sect. 4. Ans. What a blasphemous consequence is this? The holy Ghost hath absolute power to forgive sins: Ergo, the Apostles also, and all other Priests have the same power. First, by this means they make no difference between the fullness of power in our Saviour Christ, and the communication of that power to other Ministers: of Christ it is said, that the Spirit was not given him by measure, joh. 3.34. and that the holy Ghost dwelleth in him bodily: but it were great blasphemy so to say of any man, Apostle or Minister beside, which have received of the same grace, but not in the like measure that Christ hath, but the spirit is given to every one in measure, as they have need in their several places and callings. Secondly, though we should grant, that the Apostles had the full authority of Christ actually to remit sins, which they shall never prove, yet it may be doubted, whether all Ministers, whom they call Priests, (which name we refuse not, if it be taken according to the sense of the original word Presbyter, and not for a sacrificing priesthood) have as full power, in this case, as the Apostles had, nay it is plain, they have not: for the Apostles and other in the Primitive Church, had power to discern spirits, 1. Cor. 12.10. and to give actually the bodies of the excommunicate to be vexed, and possessed of the devil, 1. Cor. 5.5. and after a strange manner to exercise power over their bodily life, as Peter did upon Ananias and Sapphira, Act. 5: Yet we rather stand upon this point, that neither the Apostles, nor any other Ministers have power actually to remit sins, then only as dispensers and stewards in the name of Christ. The Protestants. ALL the power of binding and losing committed to the Apostles and to the Ministers of the word and Sacraments, is, by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his word, both to pronounce forgiveness of sins to all, that are truly penitent, & the retaining of them to the obstinate and impenitent, Fulk. annot. john 20. sect. 3. So that Ministers are not made judges in this case, but only as the Lords ambassadors, to declare the will of God out of his word. 1 There is a notable place for this purpose, 2. Corinth. 5.18. God hath reconciled us unto himself through jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministery of reconciliation. So then Christ is the only author of reconciliation, the Apostles are but ministers: how then say the Rhemists, that Christ himself is but a minister also of our reconciliation, yet a chief minister, whereas the Apostle maketh him the author? God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, vers. 19 We are but ambassadors for Christ, and pray you in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God: this than is the office of Ministers, not to reconcile men unto God, but to pray them to be reconciled through Christ: Christ only is the reconciler, they but ministers of reconciliation: They are but messengers and ambassadors, only to declare their Prince's pleasure; their commission is certain, beyond that they cannot go. Wherefore that is a blasphemous decretal, and clean contrary to the scripture, which is ascribed but falsely, to Pontianus Bishop of Rome, which saith, that God hath Priests so familiar, that by them he forgiveth the sins of others, and reconcileth them unto him, Fox. pag. 59 But S. Paul saith, that God only by Christ reconcileth us unto himself. 2 Augustine doth very freely utter his mind concerning this matter, who putteth this objection: If men do not forgive sins, than it should seem to be false which Christ saith, Whatsoever you bind in earth is bound in heaven. He answereth: Daturus erat dominus hominibus spiritum sanctum, etc. God was to give unto men the holy Ghost, by whom their sins should be forgiven them. Spiritus dimittit, non vos; spiritus autem Deus est: Deus ergo dimittit, non vos: the spirit therefore remitteth sin, and not you: the spirit is God, God forgiveth sins, and not you. Here is one argument, God only forgiveth sins: Ergo, not man. Again, Quides homo nisi aeger sanandus? vis mihi esse medicus? mecum quaere medicum. O man what art thou that takest away my sins, but a sick man thyself? wouldst thou be my physician? nay, let us both together go seek a physician that may heal us. Lo, another argument: He cannot be a physician to others, that needeth a physician himself: he cannot reconcile others to God, who hath himself need of a reconciler. Further, he saith: Qui dimittit per hominem, potest dimittere praeter hominem: non enim minus est idoneus per se dare, qui potest per alium dare. He that can forgive sins by man, can forgive also without man: for he may as well forgive by himself, as he can do it by another. Here is then the third argument: If man do actually forgive sins, than Christ should not forgive sins without man: Augustin. Homil. 23. for the whole power is committed to man. Yea, the Rhemists affirm the same, that it is necessary we should submit ourselves to the judgement of the Priest for release of our sins: if it be necessary, than sins cannot be remitted without the Priest: then is Christ's power limited, he cannot forgive without man, which is contrary to that Augustine affirmeth here. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER STRAIT ways whatsoever be loosed or bound by the ministery of men upon earth, be so in heaven. The Papists. AN express power (say they) is given unto Priests to remit and retain error 76 sins: And Christ promiseth, that whose sins soever they forgive, they are forgiven of God, and whose sins soever they retain, they are retained of God, Rhemist. annot. john 20. sect. 5. Whereby it appeareth it is their opinion, which is manifest also by the practice of their Church, that at the will and pleasure of every priest exercising the keys upon earth, men are bound and loosed in heaven. They ground this their opinion upon the generality of the words: whosoever's sins you remit they are remitted, john 20.23. and Math. 18.18. Whatsoever you bind in earth shall be bound in heaven. Answer: These places are not so to be understood, as though God were bound to ratify every decree of men upon earth: for first this power is given to all lawful pastors which do hold the Apostolic faith, not to Idolatrous, ignorant and blasphemous priests, such as most, if not all, of the popish sort are. Secondly, they must decree in the earth according to Gods will: Wherefore john 20.22. first Christ breatheth his spirit upon his Apostles, and then giveth them their commission: signifying hereby, that they must execute this power as they shall be directed by God's spirit: and Matth. 18.20. it followeth, that they must be assembled in the name of Christ: that is, according to Christ's rule and the direction of his word, they must bind and lose, and not at their own discretion. The Protestants. THat no sentence or decree of men bindeth or looseth before God in heaven, but that which is pronounced according to the will and pleasure of GOD, and by the warrant of his word, the scripture every where teacheth us. 1 Prover. 26.2. As the sparrow by flying escapeth, so the curse that is causeless shall not come. Isay 5.20. Woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good: He that justifieth the wicked and condemneth the just, they are both an abomination to GOD, Prover. 17.15. Wherefore a priest binding a penitent man, and losing a wicked man, doth flatly transgress the law and rule of God's word: neither shall his sentence be ratified in heaven. 2 In saying that whosoever sins the priest bindeth or looseth, his sentence standeth in effect before God, they must needs admit one or both of these absurdities: either to grant, that a Priest cannot err in dispensing of the ●eyes, which were too shameful a saying, to give so great a privilege to every ignorant and simple priest, (such as their Church hath great store of) which no mortal man can have. Saint Paul giveth warning to Timothy, who was more than a common or ordinary minister, that he lay not his hands suddenly upon any, ad 1. Timoth. 5. vers. 22. But if Timothy so excellent a man had been free from erring in executing his function, this exhortation of Saint Paul had been needless and superfluous. Or else, they must say that the judgement of men's souls is committed unto them: for if, look, how they pronounce upon men on earth, even so it fareth with them before GOD: then the salvation and damnation of men dependeth of their sentence: But the scripture saith, Do not judge thy brother, for we shall all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, Rom. 14.10. Men therefore are not judges to pronounce who are saved or damned, but the judgement must be committed to Christ. But who knoweth not that the popish Church doth arrogate unto themselves this power, to define who are Saints in heaven, and whose souls are tormented in hell? Thus they dealt with john hus: having condemned him, they set a crown of paper upon his head pictured with devils, saying unto him: Now we commit thy soul to the devil. At the burning of that worthy servant of God and blessed martyr, john Frith, one Doctor Cook, a fowl mouthed papist bid the people to pray no more for him, than they would for a dog. Fox pag. 1036. And thus they take the Lords office out of his hand, in taking upon them to be judges of men. 3 I will conclude with Augustine's words, he saith, that sins are forgiven or not forgiven, non secundum arbitrium hominum, sed secundum arbitrium dei, & orationes sanctorum: not after the will and pleasure of men, but according to the will of God, and at the prayers of devout and holy men. THE FIFT QUESTION CONCERNING the lawfulness of marriage in Ministers. THis question hath three parts: first, whether it be expedient or requisite that all Ministers should be tied unto single life. Secondly, whether men twice married are to be admitted into the ministery. Thirdly, whether Ministers having entered into holy orders, aught to renounce the society of their wives before married. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER IT BE lawful for Ministers to marry. The Papists. error 77 BEllarmine confesseth that single life is not imposed upon Ministers by the law of God, for there is no precept either in the old or new testament, that forbiddeth Ministers to marry: but it is a positive law of the Church, most ancient and most just, kept and observed even since the Apostles time. And therefore it is not now lawful for Ministers to marry, cap. 18. lib. de Clericis. 1 1. Timoth. 2.3. the Apostle saith, that no man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life: But to be married and to have care of household, are counted amongst the affairs and business of this life: Ergo, a Minister who is the Lords soldier, ought not to entangle himself therewith, Bellarmin. Ans. First, the jesuite before confessed, that they had no scripture against Minister's marriage, how is it then, that now he pleadeth scripture? Secondly, we must put the jesuite in mind of his own exposition of this place, lib. 5. de pontiff. cap. 10. where, this place being alleged against the temporal dominion of Ecclesiastical persons, he answereth, that this place only forbiddeth negotiationes, and mercimonia, merchandise and traffic in the world, not regimen politicum, not political regiment. If then the political care of a city, province, or commonwealth be no impediment, in his judgement, to the spiritual warfare: much less without all question is the domestical care of one family, the charge of wife and children. Thirdly, we utterly deny, that marriage is an hindrance or let to the calling of Ministers: nay we say, that it is an help and comfort to those that have not the proper gift of continency. 2 The jesuite giveth divers instances, wherein marriage is a let and impediment to ministers: As, it hindereth their prayer, their preaching, their alms and liberality to the poor, for they have wife and children to care for. Bellarmin. Answer: First, belike you esteem of marriage as of an unholy and unpure thing, that a man can neither pray, nor do the office of a Christian performing the duty to his wife: and indeed one of your companions calleth marriage a profanation of sacred orders. Greg. Martin. discover. cap. 15. sect. 11. Whereas the Apostle calleth it an honourable state, Heb. 13. and it was instituted in Paradise, whereas before the fall of man there was no unclean thing. Secondly, we deny not, but that abuse of marriage both in ministers and other laymen, is an impediment to all holy actions: and therefore Saint Paul giveth general Counsel to all both ministers and others, that they which have wives should be as though they had none, 1. Cor. 7.29. that is, should live soberly in marriage, and not give themselves to the wantonness of the flesh. Thirdly, neither doth marriage hinder hospitality: for Saint Paul requiring that a minister should be harbourous, 1. Tim. 3.2. giveth also rules concerning the government of his family, his wife and children. verse 4.11. For to whom may he better commit the care of household affairs then to his wife? And that family which is guided by a careful & godly housewife, we see by experience, to yield more relief to the poor, and give entertainment to strangers, than those houses which have none. And where it is objected, that Ministers will care altogether for their children: It hath been seen that single priests in time of popery, have been more covetous and greedy to enrich their kindred, then married Ministers have cared for the provision of their children. 3 Single life by the Apostle is preferred before the married estate, and therefore fittest for Ministers: for he that is married careth for the things of the world, 1. Cor. 7 33. Rhemist. Ans. First, single life is preferred before marriage, in all men, & not only in Ministers: And therefore as laymen are not bound to single life, though it be in itself more convenient, so neither aught ministers to be. 2. Though a thing in itself be best, yet is it not universally best for every man: as riches are better than poverty, because they are God's blessing: yet is it not best for every man to be rich: God seethe it good, that some men should be poor: So single life is the best for those that have the gift of chastity, that can with a quiet conscience live single: otherwise matrimony were much better: for Saint Paul, that wisheth that every one would live single as he did, yet afterward saith, It is better to marry then to burn: So that by the Apostles judgement, to marry is best for him that hath not the gift of continency. jewel. pag. 232. defence. Apolog. The Protestants. THat it is not only lawful but convenient, that all men both Ministers and others, that have not received a proper gift of continency, should marry, and that it is agreeable and consonant to the word of God: thus we show it. 1 The scriptures are most plain for the marriage of Ministers, 1. Timoth. 3.2. Saint Paul saith a Bishop, and generally every Minister, may be the husband of one wife: and verse 11. their wives are described, how they ought to behave themselves: Let their wives be honest. Ergo, it is lawful for them to be married. Bellarmine answereth, that Saint Paul speaketh of the wives which they had before their calling and ordaining, not those, which they should marry after. But there appeareth no such thing out of the text: Nay Saint Paul, say we, had liberty as well as others, to lead about a sister a wife, even after he was an Apostle, 1. Corinth. 9 Wherefore it is as lawful afterward as afore. Bellarmine answereth: We must thus read, a Sister a woman, and it is like they were women, that did minister unto the Apostles and followed them. We reply: First, the word Sister, doth imply a woman, and therefore it had been an improper and needless speech, to say, a sister a woman: therefore we must rather read, a sister a wife. Secondly, if they were other women, which ministered of their substance, what need the Apostles to be maintained of the Churches? if they ministered but in their service and attendance, who were more fit to do it and to follow them from place to place then their wives? Thirdly, the phrase of leading about a sister, importeth a superiority and authority, such as the husband hath over his wife. Another place we have, Hebr. 13.3. Marriage is honourable among all men: Ergo, amongst Ministers. Bellarmin. If it were meant of all marriages, then to marry within the degrees of consanguinity, were also honourable. Answer: This is a very childish cavil: First, he might have read further, And the bed undefiled: Saint Paul therefore speaketh of lawful marriage: and indeed the other joining and coupling of men and women together contrary to GOD'S law, is not to be counted Matrimony or Wedlock, but Incest rather and Fornication, as the brother to marry his brother's wife, and such like. Secondly, Saint Paul saith, not all marriages are honourable, but marriage is honourable for all men; the generality is not of the thing, but the persons: Wherefore we do fitly conclude out of this place, that marriage is lawful and commendable even among ministers. argum. Caluin. Further Saint Paul saith, For avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife, 1. Corinth. 7.2. Here is no restraint for Ministers. Bellarm. this is to be understood of those that have not made a vow of continency. Answer: First, our Saviour Christ commandeth no such vows: it is a cruel Antichristian yoke laid upon Ministers, to bind them, when they receive orders, to vow single life: & therefore your Antichristian decree ought not to abridge the general liberty granted by the Apostle. Secondly, the end of marriage is general, to avoid fornication, and therefore the remedy also is general: for every man having not a proper gift of continency, may be in danger of that inconvenience, if he be denied the ordinary help. Melancthon. Again, 1. Timoth. 4. to forbid marriage is called a doctrine of devils: but the Popish Church forbiddeth marriage. Bellarm. We do not forbid marriage to any, but we require single life of all that are entered into orders, which, it is at their own choice to receive, or to refuse. Ans. First, it is necessary that some should receive orders, and be consecrate to the Church ministery: wherefore requiring this condition of all such to live single, though particularly you prohibit not this man or that to marry, yet generally you prohibit the whole calling, which is worse. Secondly, if you say you do not forbid marriage simply to all: no more did the Manichees, for they suffered their scholars and auditors to marry. And Saint Augustine's words are general. Ille prohibet matrimonium, qui illud malum esse dicit: he forbiddeth marriage, Cont. Faust. li. 30. cap. 6. that thinketh it is evil: you therefore forbidding marriage, must needs hold opinion that is wicked and evil. 2 This restraint of the marriage of Ministers, hath not been of ancient time in the Church, but imposed upon the Church of late, 1000 year after Christ: Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus anno 180. had seven of his progenitors before him Bishops of the same See. In the Nicene Council Paphnutius stood up, and stayed the decree, that should have passed, for restraining of the marriage of Ministers, and it is said, Synodus landavit sententiam Paphnutij: The Synod commended Paphnutius sentence. Sozomen. lib. 1. cap. 11. Gregory the father of Gregory was Bishop of Nazianzum. The Greek Church never yet received this popish decree of single life, and their Bishops are married at this day. Bellarmine saith, that the Church of Rome hath dispensed with them, cap. 18. Ergo if the Pope would dispense with the Latin Church, it might be lawful enough then for Ministers to marry; wherefore it is but a human constitution. Again, it is false that they have dispensed with the Greek Church: they care not for their dispensations, but use their own Christian liberty: neither was the Greek Church ever subject to the Bishop of Rome. Thus we see, that in times past marriage was lawful for all men, until Pope Nicholas the second, Alexander the second, and Gregory the seventh, that notable sorcerer and adulterer: for these three coming together, one not long after another, began by public decree to restrain Priests marriage: not long after them, Anselme began to play the Rex here in England, anno 1104. who stoutly proceeded in his ungodly purpose, Fox pag. 1166. and enacted that married Priests should either leave their wives, or their benefices. At which time 200. Priests at once came barefoot to the King's palace, to make complaint: And for all Anselmes' Popelike and outrageous proceed against married Priests, yet they continued married well nigh two hundred years after Anselmes' time, Pag. 1167. do what he could: and thus it is manifest, that the restraint of Minister's marriage is no ancient thing, but then began most to be urged, when Antichrist fully was revealed to the world, when as the orders of Friars came in and were confirmed and privileged under Boniface 8. about anno 1300. 3 What better argument can we have against this Popish decree, than the great uncleanness, and foul enormities that have been brought, by the means thereof, into the Church? In the time of Gregory the first, who enjoined his Clergy to live single, commanding on a time his servants to catch him some fish, out of his Motes and Ponds, in stead of fish they brought unto him six thousand heads of young children: whereupon, he fetching a great sigh with himself, commended then the saying of the Apostle, It is better to marry then to burn. Bellarmine hath no better answer then to deny the story, which notwithstanding is found in the Epistle of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, which he sent to Pope Nicholas. Fox. pag. 1155. In Anselmes' time, after the restraint of Minister's marriage, great rumours, and complaint was brought to him, Fox. pag. 1165. of the execrable vice of Sodomitry, which began to reign in the Clergy. Pope Pius the second said, he saw many weighty causes, why wives should be taken away from Priests, but he saw more why they should be restored to them again. Bishop jewel Apol. cap. 8. divis. 3. Bernard saith, Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile coniugium, etc. Take from the Church honourable Matrimony, shall you not replenish it with incestuous persons, concubinaries, Sodomitical vices? Hereupon the popish Catholics seeing their own infirmity, Sup. Cant. serm. 66. jewel p. 231. began thus to salve up the matter, Si non castè, tamen cautè: if thou deal not chastened, yet deal charily. Yea they are not ashamed thus to write, If any of the Priests should be found embracing of a woman, Fox. p 785. it must be expounded and presupposed, that he doth it to bless her. I but (saith Bellarmine) these are the abuses of single life, will you condemn a good thing, because of the abuse? by the same reason (saith he) coelum & terra tollenda sunt, Heaven and earth must be taken away, because they were abused of the heathen and taken for Gods. cap. 21. Answer: First, we say not, that these be the fruits of single life, which Saint Paul commendeth in all those that have the gift, but of this coacted and constrained Popish Virginity, which is imposed indifferently upon all, and cannot have any good use: secondly, when you can prove that restraining of Minister's marriage is of God's ordinance, as it is certain Heaven and earth are of his making, than we will grant unto you, that it may have a right use, and for the abuse ought not utterly to be abolished. 4 Lastly, Augustine saith, Quae nubere volunt, & ideo non nubunt quia impunè non possunt, melius nuberent, quàm urerentur, id est, De sanct. virgin. cap. 34. quàm occulta flamma concupiscentiae in ipsa conscientia vastarentur. Those Virgins, which would marry, but cannot, because of restraint, and reproach, might better marry than burn, that is to say, then with the secret flame of concupiscence, to be wasted and consumed in their conscience. Wherefore it followeth, that all they, both Ministers, votaries & Virgins, that have not power to abstain, should do better, for all their profession and vow, to marry, then to burn. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER any aught to be admitted to the ministery after second marriage. The Papists. THey deny not, but that Bishops and Ministers, having been once married, error 78 are rightly ordained, so that afterward they do not company with their wives: but they which have been either themselves twice married, or have married a widow, which had a husband before, are utterly uncapable of holy orders, Bellarmine cap. 23. Rhemist. Timoth. 3. sect. 4. and this they call Bigamy. 1 They reason thus out of Saint Paul's words, 1. Timoth. 4.2. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife: that is, say they, that no kind a way was, Bigamus, or had two wives either at once, or one after another: And they prove their interpretation thus: First, as Saint Paul describeth a widow of the Church, 1. Timoth. 5.9. that hath been the wife of one husband, so here he saith of a Bishop, that he should be the husband of one wife: but that is meant, successiuè, of one husband after another: for it was never seen that one woman should have more husbands than one at once, nor never suffered either amongst the jews or Gentiles: therefore it must be so taken here, a husband of one wife: that is, who hath been but once married, as it is taken there, a wife of one husband, that never had more, not only simul, at once, but not successiuè, not successively one after another, Bellarmine cap. 23. Ans. First, there were many women both among the jews and Gentiles, that had forsaken their first husbands, and were unlawfully coupled to others, and so had more husbands at once, and likewise many men that had done the like to their wives, but afterward repent, and were converted to the Christian faith, but yet were not admitted to any public office in the Church, because of their former infamous life. Of such the Apostle speaketh in both these places, and not of those that married one wife, or one husband after another. It is therefore great boldness, and a greater untruth to say, that there were none such heard of in those days: for although it were neither lawful then nor now, yet both many such were heard of in those days, and it were no hard matter to find out some now among the papists, that have had more than one wife at once. Secondly, he is not to be counted Bigamus, or Digamus, that is coupled and joined to one wife after another lawfully, but he that unlawfully at once enjoyeth more than one. Fulk. Annot. Timoth. 5. sect. 6. & cap. 3. sect. 4. 2 Again say they, the high Priest in the law was not permitted to marry a widow, Leuit. 21.13. Which law being observed in the high Priest, ought much more to be kept now, Rhemist. Answer: That law concerning the high Priest, did only appertain to himself, who was a figure of Christ: neither can it be extended to the Ministers of the Gospel, no more than any other parts of his office, that were peculiar to that state and calling, Fulk. Annot. 1. Timoth. 3. sect. 4. The Protestants. THat it is not by the word of God forbidden, that any man should marry the second, yea the third time, after the decease of his wife, neither that he is to be counted unchaste or given to wantonness in so doing (much less he that in his first marriage taketh a widow,) neither that, to have been twice married aught to be a bar or a stop from entering into the state and calling of the ministery, if otherwise the man be qualified and furnished with sufficient graces for that calling: thus it is proved. 1 They that cut off such, as have been twice married, from behaving any calling in the Church, do savour of the heresy of Montanus, into the which also tertullian fell, who condemned second marriage: for if once marriage be no impediment nor prejudice to him that is to be ordained, but second marriage be, then do they disallow second marriage, (because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister) if not simply, yet they make it less lawful, nay more offensive, and subject to obloquy and reproach. But the scripture maketh no difference between first & second marriage: S. Paul saith, For avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife: he saith not, his first wife: but generally: so that it is lawful for avoiding of fornication to marry the second or the third wife, as well as the first. 2 If it be as lawful to marry the second wife, as the first, if it be for avoiding of fornication, than second marriage doth no more hinder the receiving of orders then the first: but the antecedent is true: for what should make the second marriage less lawful? not any duty that the wife or the husband oweth to the party deceased: for they are free in that respect, & set at liberty, Rom. 7.3. Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before: for he that marrieth the second time, may have as good cause to do it, for avoiding 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 adultery, or to have a Concubine: but these were no lets of priesthood in popery: Nay, we read that Augustine in the purer age of the Church, that confesseth he had two Concubines, yet afterward was made presbyter, Confess. lib. 6. ca 15. 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 lawful to marry the second time & the third, as the first. Ait Apostolus, mulier alligata est viro, quamdiu vir eius vivit; non dixit primus, secundus, tertius, aut quartus: The woman is bound (saith the Apostle) so long as her husband liveth; he saith not, De bono viduitat. cap. 12. the first husband, second, third, or fourth: So the woman is as free after the first or second husband's death, as when she was a virgin. Yet if she can content herself with her widows estate, and have the gift of continency, she shall do better not to marry: But if she have not, it is better to marry (S. Paul saith not, the first, second or third time, but so often as she hath need) rather than to burn. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrain the company of their wives, being entered into orders. The Papists. THey confess, that Peter and other of the Apostles were married, but after their calling they had no company with their wives, Rhemist. Math. 8. sect. 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospel (saith Bellarmine) be kept from the use of their wives, to whom they were married before their calling. 1 The Priests of the law were bound to withdraw themselves during the time of their service, while they attended upon the sacrifice, and to forbear the company of their wives: much more the Priests of the law, that must always offer sacrifices, must be always free from matrimony, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 10. Ans. 1. The levitical priesthood did represent and shadow forth the priesthood of Christ, and their legal cleansings, washings, abstinence, purifyings, did show forth the holiness and perfection of the priesthood of Christ: wherefore the law of their abstinence doth no more bind us, than other of their legal purifications: they have their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the new testament, nor any sacrifice in the Church for sin, but only that sacrifice of atonement upon the Cross: but our sacrifices are spiritual, of praise and thanksgiving; therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law, to those that are no priests, Fox. pag. 1166. 3. Pureness of life, we grant, is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospel, as it was then in the priests of the law: therefore they ought as well to have liberty to marry, seeing matrimony is the best remedy against fornication and uncleanness of life. 2 Another argument they pick out of S. Paul's words, 1. Corinth. 7.5. Defraud you not one another, unless it be by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. If the lay man cannot pray, unless he abstain from his wife, the Priest, that must always pray, must always abstain, Rhemist. Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers always as well as the Priest, and so by this reason, neither aught any lay man to perform his duty to his wife, if it were an hindrance to prayer. 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all prayer, but of a special kind, which, to be made more fervent, requireth fasting and abstinence, which kind is not always necessary, but upon some certain occasion. 3. It is so far off that a lay man cannot pray, unless he abstain from his wife, that many times he prayeth more quietly than he that is unmarried, or abstaineth, if he have not dominion over his lust, Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 7.5. The Protestants. NEither the Apostles forsook the company of their wives, after they were called and chosen of Christ, neither aught the Ministers of the Gospel to renounce, abandon, and forswear the society and fellowship of their wives: but rather to live with them in all temperance and sobriety, for the good example of others: 1 It is proved out of the 1. Cor. 9.5. that Peter & the other Apostles did lead about their wives in their company, and S. Paul there saith, that he also might use the same liberty. Likewise, 1. Timoth. 3.5. S. Paul giveth rules concerning the house and family of the Minister, his children, the behaviour of their wives. verse 11. But where, I pray you, is it fit for the Minister's wife and children to be, then with her husband? By these places it is apparent, that Ministers wives were not excluded from their husband's company: as a thousand year after & more it was decreed by Anselme, that they should not dwell in house with their husbands, nor talk with them without two or three witnesses, Fox. pag. 1167. 2 It is clean contrary to the scripture. First, our Saviour saith, whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, Math. 5.32. By this rule, therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismiss his wife, but for fornication: Ergo, it is not lawful because of his calling, or upon any other colour to send her away. Secondly. S. Paul saith, 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 go from her: nay, though there be consent, yet they must be asunder but for a time: they cannot by consent altogether break off, and dissolve their marriage, which was made before God, though they would never so fain themselves, unless it be for fornication, then without consent the marriage knot is broken. 3 Peter left not the company of his wife after he was made an Apostle: for he had a daughter called Petronilla, of whom the popish legends writ much holiness, which must needs be borne after he was called Peter. And again, it is proved by her age, for she was so young in the persecution under Domitian, that Flaccus the County desired her in marriage: but if she had been borne before Peter's Apostleship, she must have been threescore year old at that time, or hard upon, Fulk. Math. 8. sect. 3. 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter: una sola esse causa posset, qua te id. quod vovisti, non solum non hortaremur, verumetiam prohiberemus implere, si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi, seu carnis ins●rmitate recusaret, Epistol. 45. There may be one cause, and no more, which would make me, not only to move you to perform that which you have vowed, but to dissuade and forbid you, namely, if your wife by reason of her weakness, should refuse to bear the yoke with you. Therefore, by Augustine's sentence, neither aught a Minister that is married, perform the vow of continency which he made, without consent of his wife: for he speaketh generally of vows made by those that are joined in Wedlock. THE sixth QUESTION, CONCERNING THE maintenance of the Church by tithes. COncerning the maintenance of the Church, there are divers points, wherein we & our adversaries agree: The maintenance of the Ministers of the Church is either by temporal possessions, which have been bestowed upon the Church, by the gift of devout and religious men, or else they have inheritance from their friends and a patrimony of their own, or else they live of the tithes and oblations of the people. 1 We grant, and agree unto them: that the Church Ministers, beside the portion of tithes, may lawfully enjoy temporal lands, which the Church of ancient time hath been endowed withal. But we yield unto them upon certain conditions: First, there must be a moderation used in all such gifts, which are bequeathed to the Church: for Ecclesiastical persons ought not to be too greedy and hasty in receiving whatsoever in simplicity and blind devotion any man shall give unto them: as if they see that others are impoverished by the gift whereby they are enriched. Thus the Priests offended in our Saviour Christ's time, who alured the people to bring their offerings to the Altar, though their parents wanted in the mean time, whom they were bound to relieve by the law of God. This also was a common practice in time of Popery: So the priests might be enriched, they cared not greatly, though all the stock of their patrons and founders were undone: who because they were unsatiable, & had no measure in enticing simple men, to give over their lands and Lordships into their hands, the statute of Mortmain was made not without just cause, to be a rule unto them, that otherwise could not rule themselves. Augustine doth highly commend Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and worthily, for this one act: A certain rich man of Carthage having no children, gave all his substance to the Church, reserving only the use thereof for his life time: afterward the man had children: Reddidit Episcopus nec opinanti ea, quae donaverat. Ad fratres in erem. ser. 52. The Bishop restoreth unto him that which he gave, not looking for it, nor making any account of it: In potestate habuit Episcopus non reddere; sed iure fori, non iure poli: It was in the Bishop's power not to restore the gift, but by the law of the court, not by the law of heaven. I pray you how many such examples can ye show me in the time of popish superstition? This then is the first thing required, that although it be lawful for the Church to enjoy the bequests of their benefactors, yet it should be done with some limitation: As the Levites, beside their tithes, had cities appointed them: but the number was set down, they should not exceed 48. in all: and to every city was a quantity and circuit of ground allotted, which should in length and breadth contain every way 3000. cubits, Numb. 35. vers. 5.8. 2 It must also be provided, that the gifts and legacies bestowed upon the Church, be for the maintenance of piety and true religion, and to good uses, not to nourish idolatry and superstition: or if they be given through ignorance of the time, to such unlawful purposes, they ought by the Prince to be converted to better and more godly uses: As now in England, the lands of Colleges, which were first given to maintain that abominable Idol of the Mass, are turned to the maintenance of learning and true religion. So was the law of Moses, that the gold and silver, brass, iron, tin, lead, which the Israelites should receive of the heathen, Numb. 31 23. first should pass through the fire, and so be made clean, and fit for holy uses: Even thus according to this law, the lands consecrate to superstition, having now passed through the fire of God's word, and trial of the truth, may safely be used to the glory of God, in advancing and setting forward true religion and virtue. 3 Another thing must be required: that Churchmen ought not to abuse the possessions of the Church, to maintain pride, idleness, and riotous living: for in case they do notoriously spend and waste the Church goods, the Prince, by whose authority they were given to the Church, may justly take from them their superfluities, not leaving the Church destitute of sufficient maintenance. This is notably proved by john hus, in the defence of Wickliff's articles: And we have seen the practice thereof in England, Fox. p. 457. in the late suppression of Abbeys: wherein (though some of those lands might otherwise have been disposed of) yet the providence of God notably appeared in bringing desolation upon those Cells of sin, and unclean cages of birds: neither hath this been an unusual and unaccustomed practice in the Church, for Princes to correct the misdemeanour of Priests, by cutting them short of their temporalties: for in Augustine's time the Christian Emperors dispossessed the Donatists of their Churches and possessions, and gave them to the Catholic Bishops. And at that time the Donatists cried out, as the Papists do now, Quid mihi est imperator? What hath the Emperor, the King to do with our lands? Augustine answereth, Secundum ius ipsius possides terram: by the law of Princes the Church enjoyeth her possessions: Recitemus leges imperatorum, videamus si volverint aliquid ab haereticis possideri: Tractat. in johann. 6. Let us then rehearse the laws of Emperors, and see, whether they suffer heretics to enjoy the Church possessions. Secondly, concerning the second kind of maintenance, which ariseth by the proper and peculiar inheritance, which Church ministers have: Bellarm. cap. 27. we also yield our consent, that a Minister▪ to whom some inheritance is befallen, is not bound to disclaim therefore the maintenance which he hath of the Church: for the Levites, beside the allotment of the tithes, had their proper houses, which they might sell, and redeem again, Leuitic. 25.32. As also that place 1. Timot. 3.2. will bear it, where the Apostle would have a Bishop to be harborous, and given to hospitality: which he shall be much better able to perform, having some help, beside the Church living, of his own inheritance. So than it is not to be doubted, but that Ecclesiastical persons may, together with spiritual livings, retain their own proper inheritance: referring them both to one and the self same end, that is, to countenance their ministery, and to be the better able to perform the external duties thereof, in relieving the poor, helping the needy, and such like. Thirdly, as touching the proper maintenance, and revenue of the Church, which is by tithes: divers points are agreed of and accorded between us. First, that tithes due only to the Church, and cannot be alienated to any other use, nor be turned to the maintenance of lay men: for there must be, where tithes are paid, a matter of giving and receiving, Philipp. 4.15. We give spiritual, and receive temporal: which because lay men do not perform, they have nothing to do with the tithe: for not keeping the condition, they cannot claim the covenant. 2 The people are bound in conscience, to give of their goods unto their lawful Pastors, according to the determination of the Church, and the positive laws of Princes made in that behalf, the which they are bound to obey: and the tenth being the hire of the labourer and the wages of the Lords workman, Math. 10.10: it shall be as great a sin to defraud the Minister of his portion, as to keep back the meat or wages from the hireling and labourer, jam. 5.4. 3 We utterly deny also, and herein consent with our adversaries, that tithes are not pure alms, as some have been of opinion in times past, Belarm. cap. 25. but are a plain debt of the people to their Ministers. First, the wages or reward of the labourer is no alms, but his due, and of right belonging to him: but tithes are so unto Ministers who labour in the Lord's harvest, 1. Timoth. 5.16. Ergo, no alms. Secondly, alms do always exceed the desert of the almsman, they show the benevolence and free heart of the giver, not any merit or worthiness in the receiver: but tithes and all other temporal gifts, are far inferior to the labours of Ministers: for what are temporal things to spiritual, 1. Cor. 9.11? Ergo, no alms. Thirdly, the tenth is the Lords part, and by him it is assigned to his faithful Ministers, which in God's stead do teach us, 2. Cor. 5.20. But alms cannot be given unto God. Again, the tenth is as an inheritance to the Church, and to be counted as the corn of the barn, or the abundance of the winepress, Numb. 18. vers. 26.27. It is unto them as the fruit of the earth, and increase of the ground to the husbandman: Therefore to be counted no alms from men, but the blessing of God both upon the pastor and the people. 4 We also agree, that it is not meet that the maintenance of Ministers should be voluntary, or left to the people's choice: but that it is convenient, just, equal, requisite, that both by laws of Princes, and constitutions of the Church, provision should be made, as there is, for the necessary, certain, and competent maintenance of the Church. First, the tenths in the law were established by a perpetual ordinance: Ergo, the maintenance of Ministers ought now also to be confirmed by positive laws, as then tithes were: the argument followeth: for if their ministery deserved such assurance of their maintenance, which did but serve at the Altar, much more now doth the ministery of the Gospel deserve it. And the Apostle also seemeth so to reason, 1. Corint. 9.14.15. that as they which waited on the Altar were partakers of the Altar: so God hath ordained (saith he) that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. That is, as then the people did not only give tithes voluntarily, but were bound by law to do it: even so God hath ordained, that Ministers should live of the people: and by this ordinance of God, the people may as well be bound unto it now, as they were then. Secondly, if Ministers, bound in conscience to feed and instruct the people, may also be enforced and urged by the constitutions of the Church and laws of Princes to do that, which in conscience they are bound: why may not the people likewise be constrained by public law, to perform that duty to their pastors, which their own conscience doth urge them unto? Thirdly, experience teacheth, that men are hardly (even living under a law) brought to pay their rights to the Church, no not in those places where they can take no exception against their pastors: how much more unwilling would they be (I speak of those which are not yet won to a through liking of the Gospel) if they were left to their own liberty? 5 We also acknowledge (as Bellarmine seemeth to grant, cap. 25.) that to pay precisely the tenth, is not now commanded by the law of God: as though that order could not be changed by any human law, as the Canonists hold, but men necessarily were bound to pay tithes: But thus far forth we hold, that it is grounded upon God's law: first, in respect of the equity of the law, in paying of tithes, which is this, that the Ministers ought to live of the people, and to have sufficient & competent maintenance by them: which equity and substance of the law is moral, and aught always to continue, being grounded upon the law of nature: Thou shalt not mussel the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. 1. Cor. 9.6 Secondly, in as much as the law of the land and of the Church doth confirm this ancient constitution of tithes, (which is left indifferent of itself) we are bound to obey such laws, being agreeable to the word of God: And in this sense also, tithes may be said to be due by the law of God, because God's word commandeth obedience to our Magistrates, in all lawful ordinances. 6 Though the law of tenths be not now necessary, as it was a ceremonious duty: but it is lawful either to keep that or any other constitution, for the sufficient maintenance of the Church, whether it be more or less than the tenth part: yet we doubt not to say, that this provision for the Church maintenance by paying of tithes, is the most safe, indifferent and surest way, and no better can come in the place thereof. First, it is the most equal way, to have every thing in the kind, according to the Apostles rule; Let him that is taught make his teacher partaker of all his goods, Galath. 6.6. But this cannot be so conveniently done any other way, as by erecting of a set stipend, or such like, as by paying the tenth in the kind. 2 Whereas S. Paul requireth, that the Pastor should be given to hospitality, 1. Timoth. 3.2. who seethe not, that for the better and more convenient maintenance of his house, it is the fittest course to receive the tenth in his own nature and kind: being so more able to relieve the poor, having sufficient provision and store of his own? 3 The tenth is as the corn of the barn, & the abundance of the winepress, Numb. 18.27. that is, it is more or less, as God giveth increase to the fruits of the earth: which is the most equal and indifferent way: for then the Minister, as God blesseth them, shall be partaker of the blessing, and if they suffer loss, he likewise shall bear the burden with them. 4 This manner of tithe-paying is far more safe and sure, than any way can be devised, because of the long custom and continuance, which without great hazard of the Church cannot be broken: neither is it possible by any act of parliament, to make stipends so certain, as this constitution of tithes is: for the people will hardly yield to break their custom: and when an old custom is broken, a new is not so soon received: nay, many years must run to make a custom. Again, whatsoever may be objected against tithes, that they breed much trouble, wrangling and contention, may be more justly feared, in the collection, levying, imposing, and demanding of stipends. 5 Hitherto we have showed, that it is most natural, that the Ministers portion should be paid in the kind. Now, concerning the tenth, though it be not necessary, yet that proportion being first appointed by the wisdom of God, is verily thought to be most equal and indifferent between the pastor and the people, as both affording competent sustenance for the one, when he liveth of the tenth, rather than the fifteenth, or twentieth part, which were too scant allowance, nor yet grieving or oppressing the other, when the owner hath nine parts reserved to himself. And so if it be most meet, that things should be answered in their kind, no proportion can serve better, then that which was first devised by the Lord himself: yet we hold neither the one nor the other to be necessary. Hitherto for the most part we and our adversaries are agreed, both concerning tithes, as also other maintenance of the Church: but we differ about tithes in two points. First, there is a question between us and the Rhemists about the necessity of paying of tithes: Secondly, concerning the right whereby the Ministers of the Gospel may demand their duties, which they say, is by reason of their Priesthood: of both these now briefly in their order. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Payment of tithes be necessary. The Papists. error 80 THe payment of tithes is a natural duty, that men own to God in all laws, and to be given to his Priests in his behalf for their honour and livelihood, Rhemist. annot. 7. Hebr. sect. 4. 1 jacob vowed to pay tithes to God, before the law, Genes. 28. Ergo, it is a perpetual law. Rhemist. Ans. One Papist shall answer another at this time. Bellarmine proveth by this example the clean contrary, that the payment of tithes is not moral, because it did not bind before the law of Moses: for jacob made a voluntary vow to pay his tithes, upon a condition: but if he had been bound absolutely to pay tithes, they should have been paid without any such condition: It was therefore a voluntary and a frank offering in jacob. 2 Christ confirmeth the law of tithes, Math. 23.23. though he prefer the works of mercy and judgement, yet he saith that the other ought not to be left undone, speaking of the paying of tithes, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. We must consider in what time our Saviour Christ so spoke unto the Pharisees: for as yet neither the law nor the ceremonies thereof were fully abrogated: Christ was circumcised, & Mary his mother purified according to the law, Luk. 2.21.22. Our Saviour also biddeth the Leper to show himself to the Priest, and offer a gift as Moses commanded, Math. 8.4. Yet none of all these ceremonies do now stand in force, though Christ did them at that time, and bade them to be done. The same answer may serve also concerning his injunction to the Pharisees as touching their tithes. The Protestants. THe law of paying tithes did borrow part of the moral, part of the judicial, and part of the ceremonial law. The moral part therefore, is the equity of the law, which is perpetual, that as the Levites then lived of the tenth, so the Ministers at all times ought sufficiently to be provided and cared for. The judicial part was in this, that as the Levites were not much less in common account then the tenth part, being one of the tribes, (though in proportion of number, they made well-near the thirtieth part: for the rest of the tribes were numbered to six hundred, three thousand, five hundred and fifty persons, Numbers 1. the Levites made but two and twenty thousand, 603550 Numb. 3.) As I say the Levites made one whole tribe, and were not much less than the tenth part in that account, being in number the thirteenth tribe, for there were twelve beside. So it was thought reasonable that the tenth part of their brethren's goods should be allotted unto them: which being a judicial and politic constitution of that country, doth neither necessarily bind Christians now, neither is forbidden, but left in that respect indifferent. Thirdly, the ceremony of the law was in this, because the tenth was due to the priests and Levites for their service at the altar, and as belonging to their priesthood: In which sense tithes are neither due now unto Ministers, nor in any such respect can be challenged, seeing the Priesthood of the law is gone, and all the ceremonies thereof: Whereof although it be a wise and politic constitution, that the people should pay their tithes, and may conveniently be retained, yet is it not now of necessity imposed upon Christians, as though no other provision for the Church could serve but that. 1 Bellarmine thus reasoneth (for herein he is an adversary to our Rhemists) (one jesuite against another) If the law of tithes be moral, than the other precept annexed to this law was moral also, that the Levites, because they lived of the offerings and tithes, should have no patrimony or inheritance beside. And by this reason every Minister now aught to resign such inheritance and possessions, as are left him by his friends: which is not to be admitted. Ergo, neither the other law standeth necessarily in force, Bellarm. cap. 25. 2 Saint Paul saith in flat words, If the priesthood be changed, of necessity there must also be a change of the law, Heb. 7.12. But the priesthood of the law is altered and changed, Ergo, also the law of the priesthood, and so consequently the ceremonial duty of tithes. 3 In Augustine's time, it was no general law nor custom in the Church, that tithes should be paid. Praecidite & deputate aliquid fixum ex annuis fructib. vel quotidianis quaestibus: defaulke, saith he, and appoint some certain portion, either of your yearly fruits, or your ordinary and daily gains. In Psal. 146 Decimas vis? decimas exime: Will you make choice to pay tithes? then let that be the portion. And yet this is no great matter: for the pharisees, whose righteousness you ought to exceed, paid their tithes: Tu vix millesimam das: Thou scarce payest the thousand part: Tamen non reprehendo, vel hoc fac, sic sitio, ut ad istas micas gaudeam: Yet I find not fault: do so still: De tempor. serm. 205. for I so thirst after your well-doing, that I refuse not your very crumbs. We see then, that then the payment of tithes was voluntary: Augustine refuseth not the ten hundred, that is, millesimam partem, the thousand part, which he calleth their crumbs. THE SECOND PART, BY WHAT RIGHT tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel. The Papists. COncerning tithes or their equivalent due to Christ & the priesthood of the error 81 new Testament, Rhemist. annot. Heb. 7.4. this then is their opinion, that the priesthood of the Gospel being more excellent than the priesthood of the Law and their sacrifice, which they offer up in the Mass, being of greater worthiness, they may with better right challenge tithes, than the priests of the law did for their service at the altar: So that tithes are due to the Church only because of the priesthood, not for any other duty appertaining to that office, as preaching the word, ministering the sacraments, or any such. Abraham paid tithes, they say, to Melchisedech, which was the priest of the most high God in offering the forms of bread & wine, wherein Melchisedech did sacrifice: Ergo, tithes are now due to the priests of the Gospel and new law, which are all after the order of Melchisedech, Rhemist. Hebr. 7. sect. 4. & 8. Answer: First, Melchisedechs' priesthood consisted not in offering bread and wine to God, but brought them forth to refresh Abraham: neither were they forms of bread and wine only, as you imagine, but very material bread and wine: for if Melchisedechs' priesthood had consisted therein, the Apostle would not have omitted the chief thing, wherein Christ's priesthood was showed forth, as he doth, making no mention at all of it. Heb. 7. Secondly, again it is great blasphemy to say, that every popish priest is after the order of Melchisedech, Rhemist. Heb. 7. sec. 8 nay that the proper act of Christ's priesthood consisteth in the perpetual offering of his body & blood in the Church: for by this reason every impure priest doth more properly offer the body of Christ in the Mass, than it was offered by himself upon the cross: them the which, what greater blasphemy can be uttered? And yet they are not ashamed to speak it: yea the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, (say they) was after the order of Aaron; and not after the order of Melchisdech, Fulk. Heb. 7. sect. 9 12 and so they prefer every popish priest offering in the Mass, before jesus Christ sacrificing himself upon the Cross: contrary to the scripture, which maketh this difference between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchisedech; that the priests of the law were many, because they were taken away by death: But Christ's priesthood is eternal, because he dieth not, Heb. 7.23. But if there should be many priests after Melchisedechs' order, there should herein be no difference at all: Wherefore seeing Melchisedechs' priesthood only resteth in Christ, and is not translated to any other; and that there is now no sacrifice left but spiritual, of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13.15. it followeth that by Melchisedechs' right no tithes are now due unto the Church, neither in any such regard ought to be challenged. The Protestants. TIthes, or their equivalent are not due to the Church in respect of any sacrificing priesthood, of which sort there is none in the new testament ordained to continue: but for other pastoral duties, and principally the preaching and dispensing of the word, and instructing of the people. 1 If there were any such priesthood, and tithes in that right did appertain to the Church: it is most like that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them. But there is no one precept in the new testament concerning paying of tithes, but only for a sufficient maintenance for the ministers of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9.14. Gal. 6.6. Fulk. Hebr. 7. sect. 4. 2 Saint Paul every where, so oft as he showeth the duty of Christians in relieving and maintaining their pastors, maketh only mention of sowing of spiritual things, 1. Cor. 9.11. and of teaching and instructing, Gal. 6.6. Ergo, tithes are due unto Pastors and Ministers only or especially for their feeding and instructing, and sowing spiritual seed, which is the word of God. 3 There is no such sacrificing priesthood now in the Church, as we have partly showed before, and shall of purpose more fully declare it afterward: for every where in the new testament spiritual sacrifices are commanded: and all Christians are made Kings and Priests unto God, Apocal. 1.6. Other priesthood we read of none. Wherefore in that respect tithes cannot be due. Lastly, Augustine saith: Si mendicum non contemnis, quanto magis bonem, per quem trituratur haec area: If thou despisest not a beggar, Psal. 103. part. 2. how much more oughtest thou to have regard of the ox that treadeth out the corn on the floor: That is, the Minister that preacheth the Gospel: for so Saint Paul expoundeth it 1. Timoth. 5.17. The Elders, saith he, that labour in the word and doctrine are worthy double honour: and then it followeth, vers. 8. for the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out the corn. Sufficient maintenance therefore to the Ministers is due for their labour and travail in the word. THE sixth GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE SUPERSTITIOUS ORDERS AND SECTS OF MONKS AND FRIARS. Monks in Latin, called Monachi, derived of the Greek word, were such, as lived solitarily, & thereupon had they their name: And they were at the beginning of three sorts: some were called Eremites that lived in woods and deserts by themselves: there were other which were mewed up and enclosed in cells and walls, which had not so much liberty as Eremites had: but kept always in their cages and closerts, and so in misery spent their days: and these were called Anchorites, that is, separated, set apart from all men and living by themselves: There was a third sort called Coenobites, which lived in companies, as it were in Colleges by themselves, & had all things common: And these properly were called Monks, Bell. lib. 2. the monach. cap. 3. This controversy hath many questions. 1 Concerning the beginning & original of Monks, & of their divers sects, 2. parts. 2 Concerning Counsels of perfection, whether they differ from evangelical precepts. 3 Concerning vows in general, three parts: First, whether it be lawful for Christians to make vows. Secondly, in what things lawful vows consist. Thirdly, whether voluntary vows are any part of the worship of God. 4 Concerning Monastical vows in particular, three parts: First, of the vow of voluntary poverty: Secondly, the vow of obedience: Thirdly, the vow of continency. 5 Concerning Monastical persons: First whether the younger sort ought to be admitted to profess Monkery. Secondly, whether children can profess without consent of their parents. Thirdly, whether married persons may with mutual consent. Fourthly, whether either of the parties, the marriage not consummate may enter into profession. 6 Concerning the rules and discipline of Monastical life: First, of their solitary and severe kind of life. Secondly, of their canonical hours. Thirdly, their habit and apparel. Fourthly, of their maintenance, whether they ought to live by begging, or labour of their hands: of these in order. THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE BEGINning and original of Monks, and of their divers sects. THis question hath tow parts: First of their original. Secondly, of the diversity of their sects. THE FIRST PART OF THE Original of Monks. The Papists. error 82 THey make this profession to be as ancient as the time of our Saviour Christ, and prove the beginning thereof both out of the new and old Testament. 1 Helias and Helizaeus were Eremites, and lived without wives, neither possessed any riches: Ergo, this profession of life is most ancient, Bellarm. cap. 5. Rhemist. annot. in Mark. 9.3. Answer: First, the argument followeth not: they had no wives, nor riches, Ergo, were Eremites: for even amongst the papists themselves many were kept from wives (as their priests) and yet were neither Monks nor Eremites. Secondly, though we read not that Helisaeus was married, yet the sons of the prophets were, that lived as it were in the same College with him, 2. King. 4.1. which Bellarmine maketh a College of Monks and Eremites: and saith very untruly, that they all lived without wives, cap. 5. Thirdly, though Elias and Elisaeus were sometime in the wilderness, yet they always remained not, neither lived there, Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3. 2 john Baptist a perfect pattern of Eremitical life, for living in the desert and wilderness, for his rough apparel, for abstaining from all delicate meat, Rhemist. annot. Math. 3.1. Answer: First, john Baptists calling was singular and extraordinary, and therefore cannot be made an author of any ordinary profession. Secondly, we deny not but his life was austere, and that he made his abode in a solitary place, yet there were houses and villages not far off: his apparel also was course cloth, made of the hard hairs of Camels: his food was of locusts and wild honey, the usual and common meat of that country: he was an extraordinary preacher of repentance, and showed in himself an example of austere life, as it became the forerunner of Christ: But being no minister of the Gospel, but the last prophet of the law, he cannot be a pattern of an ordinary profession under the Gospel, Fulk. annot. Matth. 3. sect. 1. 3 Nay Bellarm. fetcheth his monkish order from a more ancient beginning, than from Elias, & john Baptist: yea from before the flood: for Enos, saith he, seemeth to have brought in some stricter kind of life, and peculiar manner of worshipping God: whereas the text saith, that he began to call upon the name of God: that is, after another manner: for Adam, Seth, Abel, before this time called upon the name of God. cap. 5. Answer: First, who would have thought, that there had been Monks and Eremites before the flood, if the jesuite had not said it, or that this text, which he allegeth, could have proved it? The argument followeth not: Enos brought in a peculiar worship of God, therefore was founder of the Eremitical life: for he brought in the true worship of God: but the other is superstitious and erroneous. Secondly, Tremellius readeth more agreeably to the Hebrew, Tum nomen Dei coeptum est invocando profanari: then the name of God began to be profaned in calling upon, that is, his worship began to be corrupted: for the Hebrew word signifieth, both to invocate and call upon God, as also to corrupt, pollute, or profane. Thirdly, if we read as they do, The name of God began to be called upon: it only showeth a restoring and renewing of the true worship of God, which was polluted by the posterity of Cain, whose stock and family is set down in that chapter, Gen. 4. The Protestants. WE see then that this Monastical and solitary kind of life hath no proof nor ground out of the scriptures, either by precept or example: Nay this kind of profession was not known in the Church, for divers hundred years after Christ; how could then the Apostles be the founders of this order? And though the name of Monks be of some antiquity in the Church, yet they were far unlike unto Popish Monks, that for these many years have pestered the Church. 1 It is certain, as Hierome witnesseth, that Antonius, and his disciples Amathas and Macarius, were the first beginners of Monkish profession, three hundred year after Christ, Centur. 4. cap. 6. Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3. 2 The beginning of Monks, was not for the more merit, and to do penance for their own sins and the sins of the world, for Antonius the first Monk confessed, that Christ only suffered for the sins of the world: but the first occasion was given in the time of persecution, when as men were not suffered to worship God aright publicly: Fulk. Matt- ●. sect. 3. and therefore they fled into the wilderness: Rhemist. Math. 3. sect. 3. But now seeing the Christian faith is openly professed, they have no such causes to seek solitary and secret places. 3 The popish Monks are altogether unlike theirs: First, they lived in solitary places, far from resort of people: but the popish Mockmonks live in Cities and the frequency of the people, Fulk. annot. Math. 3. sect. 3. Secondly, the Monks in times past laboured with their hands: but the popish fatbellies pampered themselves in idleness. Thirdly, they are altogether unlike in life and doctrine as we shall see more at large afterward. Fulk. ibid. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the divers sects of Monks and Friars. The Papists. error 83 THey say that imitation of divers holy men, as of Saint Francis, Saint Benet, Saint Dominick, which hath brought in divers sects and orders of Religious men, do tend all to the imitation of Christ, Rhemist. annot. Philip. cap. 3. sect. 2.1. Thess. 1.2. This their assertion they would ground upon the Apostles words, Philip. 3.17. Be ye followers of me brethren: Rhemist. Answer: First, Saint Paul would have them no otherwise to follow him, than he did Christ, 1. Cor. 11.1. Neither gave any other rules to his followers, than he had learned of Christ, as the patrons of the Monkish sects have done. Secondly, Neither did Saint Paul erect a new order of Paulians, as Franciscus did of Franciscanes, Dominick of Dominicans. Thirdly, Saint Paul was a persuader of unity, not a maker of divisions among Christians: as the Monks & Friars have done, one sort persecuting another for their opinions even to death. Fulk. annot. 1. Thess. 1. sect. 2. Fox. pag. 798. The Protestants. COntrariwise we affirm, that it is a great derogation to Christ when the people shall say, I follow the religion of Augustine, the religion of Francis, an other saith, I hold of Dominick, another, I hold of jesus, as the jesuits do: Fulk. Philip. 3. vers. 17. 1 Saint Paul reproveth the Corinthians, because they made the like sects amongst themselves: one said I am Paul's, another, I am Apollo's, and concludeth that therefore they were carnal, 1. Cor. 3.4. And further, he saith, they should not rejoice in men, for all things were theirs, whether Paul, Apollo's, or Cephas, ver. 21.22. That is, they were not masters of their faith, to institute new religions and sects, but the Ministers and servants of the Lords inheritance: If therefore it was not lawful to say, I hold of Paul, I hold of Cephas: neither is it lawful to say, I hold of Dominick, I hold of Francis: I hold of jesus: for seeing they make their sects, and jesus maketh his, it is evident, that they are not all referred to the imitation of jesus: for than they might all as well be called jesuits. 2 The number of Monks and Friars was almost infinite, sects upon sects, and new orders daily were devised, as Augustinians, Bernardines, Carmelites, Carthusians, Dominicanes, Franciscanes, and a great sort more, to the number of an hundred sects, as they are reckoned by Master Fox. pag. 260. and Tilmane Heshus. setteth down 65, several sects or rather schisms of Monks, loc. 25. error 10. This irksome rabble therefore of Monks is fitly shadowed forth by the swarm of Locusts, which came up out of the bottomless pit, Apocal. 9.4. And verily as the Locusts and Grasshoppers consume and devour the fruits of the earth, so the begging-friars, and idle Monks devoured the goods of the people, and corrupted the doctrine of the Church. 3 Lastly, this division of Monkery into sects and sundry orders, is of no great antiquity: they were not known in Augustine's time, who knew no other name of them, than Monks: for he wrote a book of purpose, de opere Monachorum: of the labour of Monks: But other names of Carmelites, Carthusians, franciscans, or such like were not heard of in the Church in those days: but came in long after in the time of Innocentius 3. about anno 1212. many years after Augustine, Fox. pag. 259. THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERning the Counsels of perfection. The Papists. THis they say is the very foundation of the Monastical life, which is the most error 84 perfect estate and calling of Christians: for they perform more than Christ hath commanded, not only his precepts, but even his Counsels also: Which, they say, do much differ: for the precepts are enjoined to all Christians, and to leave a precept undone is sin: but the evangelical Counsels are given only to those that are perfect, which they are not bound to keep, neither do they sin in leaving them undone, yet if they observe them, they do merit more and shall have a greater reward: Such Counsels of perfection are these, to give all we have to the poor, to abstain from eating of flesh, to vow chastity and such like, Bellarm. cap. 7. Rhemist. annot. Math. 19 sect. 9 1 Matth. 19 verse 21. Christ saith, go and sell all thou hast, if thou wilt be perfect. This was a Counsel of perfection, not a precept given to all Christians. Answ. First, this was both a Counsel and precept, though not to all, yet to this one man, to discover his hypocrisy and vain confidence which he had in himself, as though he had kept the law, when he was far from it, Fulk. Matth. 19.9. Mark. 10.3. Secondly, it is a general precept unto all, to love the Lord with all the heart, and to be content, when the Lord requireth, for Christ's sake to leave all we have, Caluin. Institut. 4. cap. 13. sect. 13. 2 Act. 2.44. They had all things common. This is not a rule or precept to all Christian men to live in common, but a life of perfection and counsel followed of the Religious, Rhemist. Answer: This living in common among the brethren in the Apostles time, is the same that ought always to be among all Christians, that no man account that to be his own, which the necessity of his brother requireth to be bestowed upon him: this the rule of charity requireth, which is one of the great commandments. Fulk. in hunc locum. 3 1. Corinth. 7.25. Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give mine advice. A precept therefore is one thing, a Counsel of perfection another, Bellarm. cap. 9 Answer: First, Paul hath no general commandment from God to impose the yoke of continency upon any, because God had left marriage free, and therefore no man is to be barred and kept from it: But the Apostles particular advice and sentence (being moved by the spirit of God, vers. 40.) is not only a Counsel, but a commandment, that both they which have the gift of continency, should glorify God by that gift, vers. 7. and they which have it not, should marry rather than burn, and so dishonour God, vers. 9 Therefore the Apostle saith, Let every man wherein he is called therein abide with God. vers. 24. If a man be called to live single, he ought to obey his calling, having received the gift: if a man be called to the married estate, he must not presume beyond his strength, to live unmarried. Wherefore it is both Counsel & a precept, to those that have received the gift of single life: for otherwise they disobey God's calling, which is sin. And our Saviour saith, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it, Matth. 19.12. He that hath the gift, is commanded to use it, for in losing it he sinneth. And lastly, every man by commandment is bound to the uttermost of his power to set forth God's glory: But God is most glorified by the single life of those, which are able to contain, and therefore they ought in duty so to do. The Protestants. WE do truly affirm and according to the scriptures, that it is impossible for any man to perform the law and commandments of GOD, much less to fulfil more than is commanded: And therefore it is false, that beside the precepts of Christ there are Counsels of perfection, which are at a man's choice to do or not to do: for whatsoever is to the glory of God we are bound to do: We acknowledge then no such evangelical Counsels, as they imagine, Caluin. 1 Math. 5.48. Our Saviour saith: Ye shall be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect. Therefore all Counsels tending to perfection, are commandments. If there be any thing whereby we may more nearly attain unto perfection, that we are bound and commanded to do: As if a man can better obtain this perfection of godliness, by living single, if he have the gift, he ought to do it: for having not the gift, and yet presuming, he burneth in lust, and so is set further back in the course of godliness, Caluin. argument. 2 We are bound to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength: Therefore whatsoever thing there is, whereby we may express the love of God, we are bound by commandment to do it, it is not left to our own will: for not to love God more than thou dost, if it be in thy power, it is a grievous sin, Martyris argument. Bellarmine answereth thus: Qui deum diligit super omnia, etiamsi eum non tam ardenter amet, quàm forte posset, vel non faciat pro eo omnia, quae posset, ille habet deum pro summo bono, cap. 13. He that loveth God above all things, although he love him not so entirely, as perhaps he may, neither doth all things for his sake, that lie in his power, yet for all this, he esteemeth of God as his chief good: I pray you see what contradictory speeches these be: The jesuit saith, a man may love God perfectly and above all, and yet not love him so much as he is able, that is, imperfectly: so a man, by his Monkish divinity, may love God above all, and yet not love him above all: for if he did, he would refuse to do nothing for Gods love that is in his power. 3 Luk. 17.10. When you have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, and did nothing but that which was our duty to do: Ergo, we are bound to do all things that are to be done, and we cannot do that which we ought, much less more than we ought to do, Martyris argument. Bellarmine answereth: First, Christ saith, when you have done all which I commanded you, not which I counseled you. Cap. 13. Ans. As though the argument followeth not strongly: you cannot do the less, that is, keep my commandments, therefore you cannot do the more, that is, speaking now (as the jesuite doth) the Counsels of perfection, which are more than the precepts: It is a precept of necessity to dispense our goods to the use of the poor, it is a counsel of perfection, as they say, to give all away to the poor: But if a man cannot perform the first, that is, keeping his goods to use them aright, much less is he able with a resolute mind to give them all away. Secondly, he answereth: Christ biddeth them to say so, as showing their humility, not that they were indeed unprofitable servants. A poor shift, as though Christ envied the good of his servants, or would obscure their well-doing, and doth not rather advance it to the uttermost, and make the most of the serviceable works of his children, as we see, Matth. 25.34. And Christ being a faithful Prophet, would not surely deceive his Disciples, and tell theme one thing, and himself know and think another. But these Friar-like mists and smoke of Locusts, is not able to dim the clear light of this scripture, which showeth, that when we have done all we can do, we come far short of our duty. 4 Augustine, though sometime he seem to make some difference between a precept and a Counsel: Praeceptum est, saith he, cui non obedire, peccatum est: Consilium, quo si uti nolueris, minus boni adipisceris, non mali aliquid perpetrabis. De virginit. cap. 15. A precept is that, which not to obey, is sin: A Counsel is that, which if thou wilt not follow, thou dost not commit any evil, yet thou hast the less good. Though he seem in words, I say, to make difference, yet his meaning is this, That a precept is of things necessary, as to follow virtue, to eschew vice: A Counsel is of things indifferent, as to use or not to use, as to eat or not to eat flesh: But yet the occasion may so serve, that even this counsel is necessary: for we ought not to eat flesh to offend our brother. Multa facienda sunt non iubente lege, sed libera charitate: Many things are to be done (saith he) not by force of any law, but by the rule of charity: that is, we have no particular law, but the general rule of charity. A Counsel than is seen in things indifferent, which are always lawful, but not always expedient: and it is nothing else but a particular application of the general rule of charity: Charity wisheth that nothing should be done to offend our brethrens, 1. Cor. 10.32. The scripture likewise giveth liberty to eat flesh, there is no general precept or prohibition yet the Apostle giveth counsel, that is, according to the rule of charity saith, that although all things are clean: Malum tamen est homini, qui per offensionem manducat: yet it is evil to the man that eateth with offence, Roman. 14.20. Here we see the transgression of an Apostolical Counsel is sin: And though we be not bound by any particular precept, at this time or that to abstain from flesh, yet, qua facienda sunt libera charitate, the things that are to be done in the duty of love, do as well bind us, as if we had a direct commandment: for love is the fulfilling of the commandments, yea it is one of the great commandments to love one another. Yet the counsel or liberty concerning indifferent things, remaineth in it own nature free still: as the Apostle counseleth to eat, not ask any question: in such a case it is neither evil not to eat, nor good to eat: but if any man be present that may take offence by our eating, then is it evil to eat. So Augustine concludeth: Multa mihi videntur licere & non expedire, quae per justitiam, quae coram deo est, permittuntur, sed propter offensionem hominum vitanda sunt. Many things are lawful, but not expedient, lawful before God, but not expedient because of the offence of our brethrens. De adulter. coniug. lib. 1. cap. 14.17. Thus we see Augustine doth nothing favour the popish distinction of precepts and counsels: for by his sentence, even Counsels, that is, the liberty and freedom of things indifferent, are restrained, and made necessary in the external use, by the rule of charity. THE THIRD QUESTION CONCERNING vows in general. THis question hath three parts: first, whether it be lawful for Christians to make vows. Secondly, in what things lawful vows consist. Thirdly, whether voluntary vows be any part of the worship and service of God. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER VOWS Pertained only to the old law, and are not now permitted unto Christians. The Papists. THey hold it as lawful, and as free a thing for Christians to bind themselves by vows unto God, as it was used and practised of the jews in the time of the error 85 law. 1 Isay 19.21. They shall know the Lord in that day, and do sacrifice and oblation, and vow vows unto God and perform them. This prophecy is concerning Christians, which should in the time of the Gospel make vows unto God, Bellarm. cap. 17. Ans. The Prophet doth, by the external service of God used in the Church at that time, set forth the spiritual worship of God in the Church of Christ: for jewish vows shall be no more then in force, than their sacrifices and oblations. Also vers. 19 the Prophet saith, that an Altar shall be set up in Egypt, and vers. 18. They shall speak the language of Canaan: But these things were not literally, but mystically performed, neither is it necessary the other should. 2 Psal. 76.11. Vow unto God and perform: Ergo, vows now are lawful, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. It appeareth by the text, that it was a commandment unto the jews, and for that time: for it followeth, All ye that are round about him: that is, the Levites and Priests that dwelled round about the temple. And bring presents to him that ought to be feared: but now Christians bring no such external presents and gifts, therefore it cannot be properly understood of them. The Protestants. WE do not condemn all vows, neither deny, but that a Christian in some cases may vow, as presently it followeth to be showed: But jewish vows are utterly unlawful, such as the vows of the Nazarites were, Numb. 6. as to abstain from wine and strong drink, not to shave their hair, and such like: if we place religion in such vows. 1 Their vows were ceremonious, and consisted in external rites, which were shadows and significations of spiritual things: as not to cut their hair, not to touch any dead thing, to abstain from wine and strong drink: But all shadows are now gone and abolished: and such external usages are unprofitable, as were those precepts of the false Apostles, Touch not, taste not, handle not: which all perish with the using, and are the commandments of men, as S. Paul saith, Coloss. 2.21.22. Such precepts notwithstanding, Monks & Friars at this day do bind themselves unto: for it is not lawful for them to touch silver nor to taste flesh, according to the strict and superstitious rules of their patrons. 2 The Nazarites were by their vows separated unto God, Numb. 6.2. that is, were counted as more holy, during their vows, and better accepted of before God. But now God is not pleased by any such external rites, or bodily services: In Christ jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love, Galath. 5.6. 3 S. Paul saith, He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, Galath. 5.3. He that keepeth any one ceremony of the law, doth make himself a servant to the whole law: for if after the profession of the Nazarites, they will vow not to drink wine, not to shave their heads, hereby the better to please God: why are they not also purified, and bring an offering according to the law, as Paul did, who because of the infirmity of the jews, was agreed with four other men which had a vow, to be purified according to the law? But this S. Paul did being amongst the jews, who cried out against him as a breaker of the law, lest he should be scandalous unto them. Augustine thus notably writeth concerning this matter: Sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducenda erant quodammodo ad sepulchrum, non deserenda continuò, vel sicut canibus proijcienda. The ceremonies of the law (saith he) were not presently to be cast off, but as dead bodies must be brought to the grave with some seemly pomp of their friends, and not to be cast unto dogs. Thus he saith, that in the Apostles time all jewish ceremonies were not in act abolished, though they were already as dead carcases, that is, by right deprived of life: yet they required some space to be honourably laid down, and as it were buried. But whosoever would now go about to renew the jewish ceremonies again (saith he) Tanquam sopitos cineres eruens, non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae violator: He should as it were rake in dead men's ashes, and not be a seemly bringer of the body to the ground, but a wicked violator of Christian burial: Even so Augustine maketh it as wicked a part, to bring in use any jewish rites, as to pull one, honestly buried, out of his grave. THE SECOND PART, WHAT THINGS MAY lawfully be vowed by Christians. The Papists. THey hold that the proper vows of Christians are voluntary, not of such error 85 things which Christians are bound in duty to do, but of such as they may leave undone, if they will, such as are their popish vows of continency and voluntary, or rather wilful poverty. 1 Deuteron. 23. When thou shalt vow a vow unto God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it, it should be sin unto thee, but when thou abstainest from vowing, it shall be no sin unto thee. By this the jesuite proveth, that the vows of Christians are voluntary, and not of necessary duties, for it were sin to leave any thing undone, that we are in duty bound unto, cap. 19 Ans. First: We deny not but that the jews had voluntary vows, and might bind themselves by vow to perform many things, which being not vowed, it was no sin to leave undone: As the Nazarites vows concerning abstinence from wine and strong drink: which things other might lawfully use without sin, if they were not professed Nazarites. But these ceremonial laws do nothing appertain to Christians. Secondly, it may also be understood of necessary vows, which we are bound unto of duty, and then the sense is this: If you abstain from vowing ye sin not, that is, not so heinously as after the vow made; as Pagans and Infidels do sin in transgressing Gods law: but a Christian sinneth more after public profession and promise made of obedience unto God's commandments. The Protestants. WE hold that to vow is not a thing simply forbidden Christians: but our vows are limited and restrained: for they are either such, as directly or immediately are referred to the worship of God, whereby we bind ourselves more straightly to serve him: and such vows are only of such things as are commanded and necessarily to be done: and in this sense there is but one common vow of all Christians, and that is our solemn promise made in baptism, which the Papists deny properly to be a vow, Bellarmin, cap 19 There is another kind of vows, that directly concerneth not the worship of God, which may be of things not commanded, of the which we will entreat in the next section. Now we are to prove, that Baptism is the only proper vow of Christians, which directly toucheth the service and worship of God. 1 Circumcision was a general vow of the jews, for thereby they bond themselves to keep the whole law, Galath. 5.3. Ergo, Baptism is the vow of Christians, which cometh in the place of circumcision. And again, it appeareth by this, that because Christians transgressing, do deserve greater punishment, then jews or Gentiles, that they are more straightly obliged and bound by their covenant unto God than the other: and not only, as the jesuite saith, because they have tasted more of the goodness of God, and so are more unthankful: for there are two parts of the covenant between God and us: The Lord saith, Thou art my people, and so enricheth them with knowledge, and every good thing: The people say, Thou art my God, Hosh. 2.23. And thus as the Lord doth covenant with them, so they do bind themselves unto God: The breach of which covenant, is that which stirreth up principally the anger of God against us. 2 Augustine upon the 75 Psalm writeth thus: Vovete & reddite domino de● vestro omnes communiter: Quid debemus vovere? credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, bene vivere, secundum communem modum: Make your vows and pay them unto God generally altogether. What must we vow? to believe in him, to hope for eternal life, to live honestly, not to steal, not to commit adultery. These than are the common and general duties of Christians: no other then we promised and vowed in baptism. THE THIRD PART, CONCERNING VOLVNTArie vows, whether they be any part of the worship of God. The Papists. error 86 ALL voluntary vows (say they) made by Christians, as not to eat flesh, not to drink strong drink, or to live unmarried; do concern the worship of God, and thereby men are made more acceptable unto him, Bellar. cap. 16. 1 jacob vowed to pay tithes, Genes. 28. David to build a temple unto God, Psal. 131.2. But neither of these two were commanded them, and yet they were properly referred to the service of God. Ans. First, we deny not, as we have said, but that in the law and before there might be such voluntary vows, yet it followeth not, that there should be any such now. Secondly, both those duties were necessary, and commanded in general, though not in particular. As first, jacobs' vow was that the Lord should be his God, vers. 21. No man can deny, but this was necessary, and a commandment: Then seeing the Lord is his God, it is also necessary that he should acknowledge him by some external worship, as by appointing the Lord an house in that place, and bringing oblations unto his altars: these are but particular duties, that do follow that general commandment. Secondly, David did vow that, he was bound to do being King of Israel, namely, to have a care of the temple of God: for thus he saith to Nathan the Prophet, I dwell in an house of Cedar trees: but the Ark of God remaineth within the curtains, 2. Sam. 7.2. This belonged to the King of duty, as it was generally commanded all Israel, Hagg. 1.4. but that David was discharged of this care, by the especial warrant of God by the Prophet. 2 Hebr. 13.16. To do good and to distribute forget not, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Intelligitur (saith Bellarmine) de eleemosyna non praeceptae: it must be understood of alms which is not commanded. Ans. As though all kind of alms and relieving of the poor be not commanded: for the works of charity, and to do good are always enjoined us. Again, this place serveth nothing at all for vows: It seemeth he was hard bestead, that had no better choice of places. The Protestants. WE grant that there are other kind of vows then before we spoke of, which do not directly concern the worship of God, neither are of things commanded us, nor yet is God thereby the better pleased: but they serve only as helps, to make us more fit unto Christian duties: As a man that seethe he is by nature given to drunkenness, doth vow that he will take no strong drink, lest he should offend that way: Another purposeth to fast, thereby to tame his flesh, and the more fervently to pray: As job made a covenant with his eyes not to look upon a maid, 31.1. But these things of themselves, by the outward act, are not the more acceptable unto God, neither is God by eating or not eating, or looking or not looking, the better worshipped, as these things are considered in themselves. Wherefore by the word of God we condemn all voluntary and superstitious vows of men, invented to serve God by, as vows of chastity, of going in pilgrimage, offering to Images, and such like. 1 S. Paul condemneth all voluntary worship of God which is invented by man, as unprofitable, though it have a show of wisdom in humbleness of mind, and not sparing the body, Coloss. 2.23. As such are the ordinances of the world in worshipping of Angels, and in abstinence, Touch not, taste not, handle not. But such are all popish vows, a voluntary service of God, even in the same things which the Apostle taketh exception against, for they make vows to Angels, to Saints, vows to keep days holy, and to fast in them: Ergo, they are unlawful. 2 Rom. 14.23. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, that is, grounded upon knowledge out of the word: Ergo, all voluntary vows made to serve God by are to be abandoned, because they have no warrant out of God's word. Bellarmine answereth, that the place is not so to be understood, but rather, by faith, is meant the conscience of man, and so whatsoever is done against the conscience is sin. Ans. By faith, is not understood any conscience, but the assurance of a right conscience, which must needs be builded upon the word: for vers. 22. S. Paul saith, If thou hast faith, have it with God: This cannot be spoken of a corrupt conscience which is not able to abide God's trial, but a right conscience established out of the word. 3 Let us hear Augustine's judgement: Sunt multi, qui vovent, alius pallium, alius oleum, alius ceream ad luminaria noctis, alius ut vinum non bibat per aliquot annos, alius ut jejunia certo tempore faciat, alius ut carnes non comedat. Non est istud votum optimum neque perfectum, adhuc melius volo: non eligit Deus nec speciem tuam, nec oleum tuum, nec jeiunium tuum, sed hoc, quod hody redemit, ipsum offer, hoc est, animam tuam. There are many that vow, one a cloak, another oil, another a wax candle, another that he will drink no wine, another that he will fast, another that he will eat no flesh. This is not the best kind of vowing: God neither careth for thy comely apparel, nor for thy oil, nor for thy fasting: but offer that unto him, which he hath redeemed, that is, thy soul, De tempor. ser. 7. We see by this, what account Augustine maketh of superstitious voluntary vows, made with an intent to please God thereby. THE FOURTH QUESTION CONCERNING Monastical vows in particular. THere are three kinds of vows which belong unto Monkery: the first is the vow of voluntary poverty: the second, the vow of obedience unto the Monastical precedents and governors: the third is the vow of continency: of these three in order. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE vow of voluntary poverty. The Papists. THey say it is an acceptable service unto GOD, for a man to give all he hath error 87 to the poor, and by vow to consecrate and addict himself to voluntary poverty. 1 Math. 18.21. Christ faith, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor, and come and follow me. This is properly to follow Christ, to lack propriety and live in common: and thus the Apostles followed Christ, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, This is a precept not general to all, but given to this one man to discover his hypocrisy, and vain confidence that he had in himself, as though he had kept the law, which he came far short of. Secondly, the Apostles themselves had propriety: Peter had a house: john had to provide for the virgin Marie, whom Christ commended unto him: Matthew made a feast of his own goods, Fulk. ibid. 2 Act. 2.44. They had all things common: and Act. 5. Ananias and Sapphira, after their profession of common life, detaining some part proper to themselves, were reproved and judged of the Apostles: Ergo, it is acceptable to God to live in common, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 20. Answer: First, that community, used then amongst the brethren, ought always to be among Christians, no man to count that his own which the necessity of his brother requireth to be bestowed upon him: every man was not then bound to give up the propriety of their goods: for they distributed to every man as they had need, Act. 4.35. But if they had given up all the propriety of their goods, than all should have needed alike: And Peter saith not the contrary, but that Ananias might have kept the propriety of his goods, if he had not made public profession to the contrary, Act. 5.4. 2 Concerning Ananias, we do not read that he made any vow to give his goods to the Church: nay the contrary appeareth, in that Saint Peter saith, While it remained with thee, appertained it not to thee? But if his vow were passed before, the goods, though not yet sold, could not appertain unto him. Again, the principal and chief cause, why Peter proceeded against him, was his lying and hypocrisy, not for breaking his vow: for it cannot be proved that he promised all, but that he affirmed that he brought all, whereas he withdrew part. The Protestants. Voluntary, or rather wilful poverty, for a man, having no urgent cause, to leave all he hath, and bequeath himself to a poor and needy life, only for opinion of greater merit, and hope thereby better to please God, is neither a thing acceptable nor commendable before God, nor any where commanded in the scriptures. 1 1. Timoth. 6.17. Saint Paul giving Counsel to rich men, biddeth them not to cast away their riches: but Charge them, saith he, that they be not high minded, nor put their trust in uncertain riches: Surely it had been a more compendious way to wish them at once to leave their riches, so they should not be in danger, either of pride, or vain confidence: But the Apostle saith no such thing. Again, God giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy: riches are the gift of God, we ought not to be weary of God's blessing. And as job saith, The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh: therefore a man ought not to make himself poor, because he made not himself rich, but to wait upon God. Further it followeth, vers. 18. that they do good, and be rich in good works: he that can use riches well, may be rich in good works; but he that is poor wanteth occasion and means to do good, as the rich man endued with grace may: Wherefore he is an enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate, wherein he may more glorify God, for a poor. Again, if it were so acceptable a thing to God, and so meritorious to live in poverty, what made the Prophet to pray against it? Give me not poverty nor riches, but feed me with food convenient, Prover. 30. vers. 8. 2 What better argument can we have against them, than their own practice? for, though in words they much commend voluntary poverty, yet it is a rare thing, to find it amongst them: for not one among a thousand of them, if they have lands, do give them to the poor, but to their own kinsfolks, or else to the Abbeys, where they know they shallbe wealthily maintained. The Pope also is good to many, and granteth them capacities to possess temporal goods contrary to their former vow. Fulk. annot. Mark. 10. sect. 3. 3 Augustine saith, Divitiae seculares si desint, non per opera mala quarantur in mundo: Si autem adsunt, per opera bona seruentur in coelo: Epist. 1. posteriorum. If secular riches be wanting, let not a man seek to get them by evil doing in the world: but if he have them, labour, by well doing, to store them up in heaven. He counseleth not men to cast away their riches: It was the heresy of the Pelagians to persuade rich men to cast away their goods, August. epistol. 106. and of the Manichees likewise, August. count Faustum. lib. 5. cap. 10. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the vow of obedience. The Papists. error 88 THey that do enter into the monkish profession, do vow in all things to become obedient to their governor, & to follow his rules & injunctions: As the franciscans follow Saint Francis rule, who in stead of a girdle, put a cord about him, went barefoot, in winter season covered his flesh with ice and snow. Fox. p. 259. It is acceptable, and grateful service, say they, unto God, to be thus obedient to their fathers and governors. 1 jerem. 35. The sons of jonadab are commended, for being obedient to their father, who enjoined them to drink no wine, nor to sow their fields, nor build houses but dwell in tents: See, they obeyed their father in things not commanded of God: Ergo, so ought religious Monks to do. Bellarm. cap. 21. Answer. First you cannot show, that your monkish Abbots have such authority over their Monks, as the father hath over his children: for Coloss. 3. and in many other places, children are commanded to be obedient to their parents: But they have neither authority nor calling out of the word. Secondly, jonadab enjoined nothing contrary to the law of the Nazarites, Numb. 6. and if you say, that it was not the custom of the Nazarites to dwell in tents: you shall find that the Rechabites did not so straightly observe this, as the other, namely not to drink wine: for jerem. 35.11. they came up for fear of the Chaldeans that were in the land, and dwelled at jerusalem: they dispensed with the voluntary injunction of their father, for dwelling in their tents, but kept the other vow of abstaining from wine still, because it was after the law. Wherefore this example maketh not for monkish obedience, seeing they are enjoined things not commanded by God, nay contrary to his commandments. The Protestants. NO obedience to any ruler either spiritual or temporal is to be yielded unto, but for the Lords sake, and in such matters, wherein we have the warrant of God's word for our obedience. 1 Coloss. 3.23. Servants be obedient to your masters, and whatsoever you do, do it hearty as to the Lord: But if any thing be enjoined us which is not warranted by the word of God, we cannot with a good conscience obey as before the Lord. Again, Saint Paul saith, Coloss. 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over 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 over men at their pleasure. 2 Augustine saith, Cum homo conster anima & corpore, oportet nos ex ea part, quae ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse potestatibu●: ex illa part, qua credimus deo, & ad eius regnum vocamur, non oportet nos cuiqua● esse subditos: Seeing a man doth consist both of body and soul; in regard of that part, which the affairs of this life concern, we ought to be subject to the higher powers: but in respect of that part whereby we believe, and are called to the kingdom of God, we must be obedient to none, August. in 13. ad Rom. Therefore no man may impose any new religion upon us, which altogether toucheth the conscience. THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE vow of continency or chastity. The Papists. THe vow of chaste and continent life is commendable and meritorious, they say, in all that do take it upon them, and after the vow made, they are sure error 89 to receive that high gift of continency, if they duly labour for it, Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 7. But whosoever marrieth after the vow made, sinneth damnably, and turneth back after Satan. Rhemist. annot. 1. Tim. 5. sect. 12. 1 Math. 19.12. Some have made themselves chaste, or as the Rhemists do very homely translate it, have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: this proveth the vows of chastity to be both lawful and meritorious, Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ans. This is meant only of those that have the gift of continency, who, if they be sure they have received it, may vow and purpose single life: but without such assurance no man can vow continency lawfully. Secondly, but as for meriting, it cometh neither by being married or unmarried, but is the free gift of God through Christ. Fulk. ibid. 2 1. Timoth. 5.12. Having damnation because they have cast away their first faith: that is, the vow of continency, which they made to Christ: it cannot be meant of the first faith in baptism, for that is not lost by marriage, Rhemist. And again, vers. 15. They are turned back after sathan: we may here learn, for those to marry which are professed, is to turn back after Satan. Rhemist. in eum locum. Answer: First, Saint Paul speaketh not here of widows already chosen, but to be chosen: he would have younger widows to be chosen, because they would wax wanton, and marry: and therefore it is not like, that by the first faith here is meant the vow of chastity, seeing there is no cause that these younger widows should make any vow, being excluded by the Apostle from Church services. Secondly, vers. 14. Saint Paul himself counseleth the younger widows to marry, therefore it is not like they were votaries. Thirdly, by the first faith is understood the Christian faith, which the younger widows waxing wanton, and lascivious, nor carrying to match with Infidels, were in danger to break, as the Apostle telleth them of some that had done so already, and were turned back after Satan. Fourthly, we say not that the faith of baptism is broken by all marriage, but with joining with Infidels. Fiftly, it appeareth what breach of faith Paul meaneth, when he saith, They wax wanton, and idle, and are busy-bodies, go from house to house, and speak things uncomely, verse 13. Which is a sliding back from the Christian faith, when our life jarreth with our profession: not a breach of any vow of continency, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 10.12. The Protestants. Our sentence then appeareth to be this: that the vow of continency cannot lawfully be made of all, neither is indifferently to be required of them, seeing all are not endued with that gift, Fulk. Math. 19.6. And that it is better even for vowed persons, having rashly presumed beyond their strength, to marry, rather than to burn. Fulk. 1. Cor. 7. sect. 8. 1 The scripture every where commandeth such to use the benefit of marriage, Argum. that have not the gift to live single, 1. Cor. 7.2. For avoiding of fornication let every man have his wife: and ver. 9 If they cannot abstain let them marry. Wherefore they transgress the commandment of God, and presume rashly, that having not this gift, do vow virginity. Bellarmin. Answer. First, Saint Paul wisheth men to marry, not for every temptation of lust, but when they are ready to fall into external works of uncleanness, as into fornication: and therefore he saith, For avoiding of fornication let every one have his wife: For Saint Paul felt the prick of the flesh, that is, the lust of concupiscence, and was buffeted of it, yet married not for all that cap. 30. Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8. Answer: First, we say not that for every light temptation, which by resisting may be overcome, in those that have the gift of continency, a man is to desire marriage, but when he is continually inflamed with lust, so that the will doth consent: though he be not yet so overcome, that he fall in outward uncleanness: and this is the Apostles meaning, when he saith, It is better to marry then to burn, that is, with inward lust when his mind is disquieted: And such a man as doth burn with secret concupiscence, still wrestling with that fire, and not being able to quench it, if he refuse to use the lawful remedy of marriage, is in danger also to fall into outward fornication. 2 Concerning Paul's example: First, the place is not so to be understood of the lust of concupiscence: for it is not like, that the Apostle being kept under, with hunger, cold, imprisonment, should be so greatly tempted that way. But either it may be understood of the particular temptation to pride and vainglory, as he himself expoundeth it, vers. 7. lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations: Or else generally Saint Paul understandeth by flesh, the whole mass of corruption and whatsoever was in him that resisted the spirit: In this sense he crieth out, Roman. 7. Who shall deliver me from this body of death! Caluin. 2 Though we yield that Saint Paul was tempted of his concupiscence, yet he overcame and subdued it, obtaining from God, after some striving, grace and power to quench the secret fire: And so we deny not, but that men ought by fasting and prayer to labour for that precious gift. But if they feel the fire to burn within them still, then are they to use the remedy prescribed by Saint Paul, that is, to marry. Secondly, saith Bellarmine, Saint Paul giveth liberty of marriage only to those which were free and had not vowed continency, cap. 31. Answer: First, the Apostles words are general: Let every man have his wife: I, say the Rhemists, he speaketh of those that were married before their conversion, that they might still use and keep their wives. Yea but Saint Paul speaketh of all unmarried, 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 married not to touch his wife. Secondly, it is a general liberty, which he granteth to all, ver. 9 If they cannot contain, let them marry: but many votaries cannot contain, as it may appear by the unchaste lives of your Monkish rabble: therefore having the disease, they may use the remedy, that is, marry. Argum. 2. Virginity, and continent life is only to be required of those which have the gift of continency: But all have not that gift: Ergo, the vow of Virginity is not indifferently to be made by any. That the gift of continency cannot be had or obtained of all, neither resteth in our free will, it is plain by scripture. 1 Math. 19.12. He that is able to receive this gift, let him receive it: Ergo, all are notable to receive it. Bellarmin. First, though they are not able to receive it yet, yet they may if they will, and ask for it by prayer: for the text is, Some have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of God: whereby it appeareth that it is in the will of man, cap. 31. Answer. He speaketh clean contrary to the text: for Christ saith, None receive it but to whom it is given, and the words are, qui capere potest, not, qui velit, he that can receive, not he that will receive. And they are said to make themselves chaste, not because it is in their own choice, but being enabled of God, and having received power over their will, they are said to make themselves chaste, having received power by the spirit of God: So our Saviour saith, Come unto me all ye that are laden, Math. 11. & yet no man cometh to Christ, but his father first draweth him, john 6.44. Wherefore it being a peculiar gift of God, all cannot have it, neither are sure to obtain it, though they ask it by prayer, because we have no promise to be heard. Rhemist. When a man is bound to abstain by vow, or other necessary occasion, as imprisonment, banishment, sickness, no doubt, if he labour for the gift of continency, he may have it. Ans. They that bind themselves to a rash vow, have no promise to be heard praying for continency. Secondly, they that are driven unto any such necessity as you speak of, which they are not a cause of themselves, neither can avoid, as in long and perpetual sickness, it is certain that God will give the gift being sought by lawful means: But as for banishment and imprisonment, they are not of such necessity, 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 means commendable, which were used in Monkery: for some of them were superstitious and unlawful, as they used Physic and medicine to correct or slake, and extinguish nature in them: Francis was wont to cover his body with ice and snow, others did whip themselves: This was not to subdue and tame the body, but to destroy and kill the body, and make it unfit for other duties. The scripture prescribeth no other means but prayer and fasting, and labour in our vocation. Some of them again used external exercise of their body, as by fasting, by lying hard, by watching, which in themselves were not amiss: but they leave the chief and principal, which is the spiritual means: for the outward ex●rcise of the flesh without this, is little worth, Coloss. 2.23. Bellarmin. To believe is no less the gift of God, then to live chaste, yet we exhort all men to believe, and they do vow and promise it in baptism: why may they not as well vow continency, although it be a peculiar gift? cap. 31. Ans. They are both indeed the gifts of God, but one is necessary to salvation, namely, to believe, and is promised to all that will seek 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, saith the Apostle. But if every man might attain to that one gift of continency, they should not all have their proper gift, but all one gift, and after the same manner. And though Saint Paul should mean, that to live chastely in wedlock be also a proper gift of God, as Bellarmine urgeth, and we deny not: yet it remaineth still, that the other is a more singular and proper gift, and is not therefore commonly, and indifferently bestowed upon all. Thirdly, Saint Paul saith, that a man may marry his Virgin if need so require, 1. Corinth. 7.37. But if every one, labouring for the gift of continency, might obtain it, there should then be no necessity of marriage: which the Apostle here affirmeth. Lastly, the Rhemists say, that the marriage of those that have vowed, is the worst sort of incontinency and fornication, 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8. Augustine saith clean contrary: 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 fidem irritam fecerunt: de bono viduitat. cap. 9 The marriages of such are not condemned, but the violating of their vow is condemned, not because they afterward entered into the league of marriage, but because they did break the first faith of continency: Augustine saith not, that such marriages are no marriages, but plain adultery & fornication: But maketh the marriage lawful, & reproveth their rashness before in making, and their unsteadfastness now in breaking their vows. THE FIFT QUESTION CONCERNING Monastical persons, which do enter into that profession. THere are four sorts of people which the papists do offer great wrong unto, in drawing them to the profession of monkery: First, unto the younger sort, which have liberty to marry. Secondly, to the children and sons, whom they make Monks without consent of their parents. Thirdly, they say, married persons, by mutual consent, may betake themselves to a Monk's habit. Fourthly, if marriage be contracted, not consummate or finished, they may one leave another without consent first had. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE younger sort are to be admitted to profess Monkery. The Papists. IF they be come to the years of discretion, they may, men or women at any error 90 age, take upon them the vow of Monkery, Bellarm. cap. 35. 1 Math. 19.14. Suffer little children to come unto me: Ergo, young men and maids may become Monks. Bellarm. Answ. First, the text speaketh of little children: but by your confession, they must be of years of discretion that should enter into your profession: so are not little children. 2. As though none could come to Christ, but through a Monk's cowl: Nay, I would, they of all men, did not go furthest off from Christ. It followeth also in the text, Of such is the kingdom of heaven: so by this reason, heaven gates should be open only to Monks and Friars: and this is the right heresy of the Pelagians, and Manichees, that promised the kingdom of God not one, but those that cast a way their riches. 2 john Baptist lived from a child in the wilderness: Ergo, lawful for young ones to profess Monkery. Answer: First, john's example is extraordinary, as his office and calling was singular, & therefore is no more to be imitated and followed in his solitary life, then in his diet of Locusts and wild honey: He sprang also in his mother's womb: so, I think, all Monks and Eremites do not. Secondly, it is not certain at what years john entered into the Wilderness: for he was thirty year old when he came and preached in the Wilderness, as Matthew writeth, 3.1. The Protestants. THough we should grant, that a Monastical life were in some persons, and at some times tolerable among Christians, yet of all other the younger sort, in whom lust doth reign, were most unfit, and not to be admitted unto that kind of life. 1 Saint Paul would have no widow to be chosen under 60. years, 1. Timoth. 5.9. and I will the younger to marry, vers. 16. Ergo, it is contrary to Saint Paul's rule, to suffer any such to make vows of continency. Rhemist. answer. First, it was but a rule for that time, when as yet there were no Monasteries nor discipline, but young widows, wandered up & down idly. Answ. First, the same cause that young women had to marry then, they have now, and therefore the rule is general. Secondly, as though the walls of Monasteries were able to keep in Virginity: no, it is notoriously known, that unchaste life hath scaled the walls of Nunneries, crept in at windows, and found muses in the ground. 2 Saint Paul, say they, counseleth young widows to marry, not young Virgins, which having not experience of lust, are not so greatly tempted. Ans. How chaste your cloister women have been, and free from these temptations, the stories of former times make mention: and the examples of so many unchaste milch-nuns, and filthy Monks and Friars, are a sufficient proof, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 11. But all these shifts notwithstanding Saint Paul's rule must stand, that no widows must be admitted under 60. year old. 2 The Manichees took occasion hereby to insult against the catholics, because they admitted so many Virgins to the profession of single life: Certatim ad hanc professionem ●asincitatis suasionibu●vestris, ut iam penè maior in Ecclesijs omnibus virginum apud vos, quam mulierum numerositas habeatur, August. cor. Faustum. 30.4. Ye labour (say the Manichees) to draw women of every hand to this profession by your persuasions, that now in your Churches, the number of professed virgins exceedeth the number of women. And hereby the Manichees that extolled virginity, and condemned marriage, were induced to think that the Catholic Bishops also were of their opinion. Likewise Augustine, epistol. 169. maketh mention of one Privius, that because while he lived among the Catholics, he could not enjoy the speech and company of two young Nuns, he ran away with them to the Donatists. Thus we see what good cometh to shut young men and women into cloisters. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER CHILdren may enter into profession of Monkery without their Parents consent. The Papists. IF they be of sufficient age, as the men of 14. year at the least, the women error 91 of 12. and their Parents be not driven to any such necessity, that they need their children's help, they may without Parents consent enter into Monkery. 1 God said to Abraham, get thee out of thy country and from thy father's house: Genes. 12. and Christ Math. 10. whosoever loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. Ergo, children may become Monks, without their father's leave, Bellarm. cap. 36. Answ. First, who would have thought that Abraham was a Monk, but that the jesuite saith it? Secondly, by the same reason a man may not leave his parents only, but go out of his country. Thirdly, Abraham was 75. year old at that time, when he went out of Haran, verse 4. Ergo, we will conclude that none ought to be made Monks before those years. Fourthly, When God calleth any man to a Monkish life, as Abraham had an especial calling of God, we will give him good leave to go. Concerning the other saying of our Saviour, it maketh nothing for you. First, Christ speaketh of persecution, when a man ought not for love of his friends to deny Christ: but, I trow you will not grant, that your Monkish life is persecution: and yet it is after a sort▪ for the Locusts, which are none other but Monks and Friars, Apocal. 9 do bite and sting like serpents, that is, do secretly wound men's consciences. Secondly, a man may leave his parents, as Christ commandeth, though he dwell in the same house with them: that is, by setting his love and affection on heavenly things. Thirdly, do all go to Christ that come into your Monasteries? nay, I would they went not from Christ: for they live after another rule, than Christ's: Francis your great founder erected a new sect of Monkery, and found out a new rule for them, which he called regulam Euangelicam, the rule of the Gospel: as though Christ's rule were not sufficient▪ The Protestants. CHildren ought not by the law of God to make any vow of single and continent life without the consent and liking of their parents. Luther. Pet. Martyr, Lib. de caelibat. et votis. 1. By the law of Moses the father had power to disallow the vows which the daughter made being in his house, Numb. 30.6. Which law was not ceremonious: for it was grounded upon the Moral law, which commanded all obedience and duty of the children to the Parents: And that it is not abrogate, it appeareth, because the same law is renewed by S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 36.37. Where the Apostle referreth the whole matter of keeping a virgin, or placing of her in marriage to the will of the father, yet so, that he must have regard unto the necessity, the estate and condition of his virgin. Both these places do apertly prove, that neither the child can be bestowed in marriage, nor vowed to virginity, without the consent and determination of the parents. 2. Let us hear what authority Augustine yieldeth to the father over his children: Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris: Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit: unusquisque ergo in domosua, si caput est domui suae, debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officium. de Sanct. Ser. 51. You (saith Augustine their Bishop) must supply our stead in your houses: a Bishop or superintendant, is so called because he overseeth: therefore every householder, being the head of his house, aught to play the Bishop in his house. The father than is a Bishop over his children: shall any man than dare to take any out of his house, that is his Bishopric, or any sheep out of his fold, without the Bishop and shepherds consent? THE THIRD PART, WHETHER Married persons may with mutual consent become votaries. The Papists. WIth mutual consent the man & the wife may separate themselves and vow error 92 and promise single life for ever, so long as they both shall live. Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marry and joseph were perfitly man and wife, yet by mutual consent they lived continently all their days: Ergo, it is lawful for married couples to separate themselves for ever, both agreeing thereunto. Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text, that there was no such thing purposed by joseph, before he was admonished by the Angel in a dream, but that, as she was already betrothed: so there was an intent on joseph's part, that they should come together. Math. 1.18. But that in the mean time Marie was found with child by the holy ghost: and so from that time joseph being a just man never knew his wife: there was no such purpose or vow before. 2. That this was an extraordinary example, who seethe it not? When any man shall be admonished by an Angel as joseph was, and shall have the like cause as joseph had to abstain, which shall never be, he may be bold to do as joseph did. The Protestants. THey that are once joined together in marriage, and have made a covenant each to other before God, can not separate themselves though they both consent, there being no other cause, but a purpose of single life for more holiness sake. 1. It is flat contrary to S. Paul's rule. 1. Corinth. 7.5. Defraud not yourselves, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and again come together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. First the Apostle saith directly: they should but separate themselves for a time. Secondly, we do thus reason out of his words: there is no cause of separation, but to be given to fasting and prayer: but this may be done by a separation for a time: neither is it necessary we should always be given to fasting and prayer, but upon special occasion: therefore perpetual separation is not needful. 3. They that are long separated, are subject to fall into tentation: the same cause therefore that moved them first to marry, for avoiding of incontinency, aught to move them to come together again: Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat themselves for ever. 2. That which God hath coupled, no man ought to put asunder: but they that are married have made a covenant to God. Pro. 2.17. as well as to themselves, and are joined by God's law together: Ergo, they can not dissolve their marriage by their own power and will, the Lord having an interest therein. Augustine Thus writeth, Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi, nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere, ut faecunda ducatur, de nupt. & concupiscen. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawful for married couples, one to be separate from another, unless it be for fornication: nor to leave a barren wife to marry a fruitful. Therefore if fornication only be a just cause of final separation, there can be no other: If there were any other, it is most like it should be for procreation of children: But neither for that cause is a man to leave his wife, Ergo for no other. Therefore, not for any vow of continency is marriage to be dissolved, or any separation to be admitted. Bellarm. saith, that by their separation, Marriage is not dissolved. Auns. It is as much dissolved, as by your law in cases of divorce. 1. For these are your words: for adultery one may dismiss another, but neither party can marry again, for any cause during life. Rhemist. Math. 19 Sect. 4. So ye allow only a kind of dismission in the case of adultery, and so you do in the vowing of continency: And thus you make this cause as forcible as the other, to break off the Matrimonial duty, which is contrary to the gospel. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER Marriage contracted not consummate, may without consent be broken for the vow of continency. The Papists. error 93 THeir opinion is, that if the marriage be contracted only and ratified, but not yet consummate, by the parties coming together, it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vow chastity, cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is, because it is lawful for a man to pass from a less perfect state of life to a more perfect, if it may be done without detriment, as this may be: for yet they have no children, and the party may as well be married to another. Bellarm. Answ. First, a single life is not always the perfecter state, nor to all, as it is not to them that have not the gift to contain, as it is most like he hath not, that is contracted, and hath made promise of marriage: for then all this needed not. Secondly, though there be none of those impediments named, yet there is a greater: namely, their faith & promise made each to other before God, which they ought not to violate. Thirdly, Saint Paul saith, If thou be bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed, 1. Corinth. 7.27. But they that are espoused one to the other, are bound, unless you will say, that the covenant made by them unto God Prover. 2.17. bindeth not. The Protestants. Matrimony whether ratified only by lawful contract or espousals, or consummate, ought not any way to be broken with consent or without, for Monastical profession. 1 Our reason is, because it is perfect marriage already in substance and before God, which is ratified by contract only and solemn vow and covenant made each to other: And being thus betrothed, the one giveth power of their body to the other, and now they are no more free. That this marriage is perfect before God, and in substance, it appeareth by the law of Moses, by the which a man defiling a maid betrothed, was to suffer death, as well, as if he had committed uncleanness with a woman already married. Deuteron. 22. verse 22.23. And Math. 1.18. Marry that was but betrothed to joseph, is by the Angel called his wife, vers. 20. 2 August. saith, Coninges fidem sibi pariter debent: Cui fidei tantum iuristribuit Apostolus, ut eam potestatem appellaret dicens, Mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis sed vir, etc. Married couples do owe faith & troth one to the other: which mutual troth the Apos. maketh such account of, that he giveth it the name of power: saying, The woman hath not power of her own body, but the man, and likewise the man, etc. Augustine saith, that by the very plighting of their troth each to other, they receive mutual power and interest one of another's body. But this troth was plighted before the consummation of their marriage, Ergo, they had one interest in another then, and can do nothing one without the consent of the other: de bon. conjugal. cap. 3. THE sixth QUESTION CONCERNING the rules and discipline of Monastical life. THis question hath four parts. First, of the solitary and severe kind of life in Monks and Eremites. Secondly, of their canonical hours appointed for prayer. Thirdly, of their habit and apparel. Fourthly, of their maintenance, whether it ought to come by their labour. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE solitary and austere life of Monks. The Papists. TO live in solitary places, to wear sackcloth, to be given continually to error 94 fasting, to lie hard, to far meanly, and by other such ways to punish and afflict the body, they say, are notable means to bring the soul to the contemplation of heavenly things. 1 John Baptist lived in the desert, fared coursely, and was barely appareled, he ate Locusts and wild honey, and ware a garment of Camel's hair: he was a right pattern of true Eremites, Bellarm. cap. 39 lib. 2. de Monach. Answer. First, John's life was not so austere, as they make it: for the place where he lived was not so solitary, but that there were villages and houses not far off, as it may appear by the people's resort unto him: his apparel was of Camel's hair, and was somewhat course, yet no such thing as sackcloth, Fulk Matt. 3. sect. 1. or haircloth, for of the finest of the Camel's hair Chamblets and Grograines are made that are had in price amongst us: his diet also in eating Locusts & wild honey was usual in that country. Secondly, we deny not but john lived an austere life, because he was a preacher of repentance, & had a singular office to prepare men for the coming of Christ: Therefore his calling being extraordinary, he cannot be an author of an ordinary calling among Christians. Thirdly, seeing Christ came eating and drinking, lived amongst men, and was appareled as others were, why should Christians rather choose to imitate the Baptist, who had no office or ministery in the Gospel, Math. 11.11. than our Saviour Christ, whose life and doctrine is for our imitation? The Protestants. THat the solitary life of Eremites, in flying the comfortable society of men, and their rigorous manner in the unnatural chastising of their bodies, is contrary to the rule of the Gospel, thus we show it. 1 Heb. 10.24.25. Let us consider one another, and provoke one another to good works, not forsaking the assemblies of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: here the Apostle speaketh manifestly against those that shun the society and company of their brethren, because they must needs fail in the duties of charity, as in exhorting one another, and provoking to good works: these duties Eremites can not perform, therefore their life is unlawful: and Math. 24, it is a note of false prophets and false Christ's to live in the deserts. Again, they that love solitary places, do offer themselves to tentation, and fall into the snares of the devil: God saw it was not good for Adam, no not in Paradise, to live alone: but I think their deserts are far unlike to Paradise: Christ to be tempted of the devil was lead into the Wilderness: Therefore such places are fit for Satan's working. The preacher saith, Two are better than one, for if one overcome him, two shall stand against him, Eccles. 4.12. We are better able being aided by our brethren to resist Satan then being alone: We ought not then to tempt God, and not knowing our own strength, to go forth into solitary places, and as it were provoke Satan to the Combat. 2 That cruel and inhuman kind of chastising their bodies by fasting & other discipline utterly is unlawful. The Monks called Grandimontenses, did wear shirts of mail next their bodies, the Charter Monks, haircloth: the Monk's Flagellants went barefoot in linen shirts, leaving an open place in the back where they did daily whip themselves before the people, till the blood followed. Moses a certain Abbot did so afflict his body with fasting and watching, that for 2. or 3. days together many times he had no appetite at all to his meat, neither could sleep. another Eremite (as Cassianus writeth) did purpose with himself not to eat meat, unless he had some guest or stranger with him, and so was constrained to abstain sometime five days together: two other Monastical brethren, travailing in the desert of Thebaide, did vow not to take any sustenance, but such as God should send them: and as they went, a certain wild people, Fox. p. 154. contrary to their custom, offered them meat, the one took it as sent of God, the other refused it, because he thought it to be sent rather of man then of God, and so died. Basilius magnus, and Gregor. Nazianzene, did so pluck down themselves by immoderate fasting, that when they were called to be Bishops they were not able to sustain the labour thereof. Where in all the scriptures learned these men, thus to punish their bodies? this is not with Saint Paul to subdue and bring under the flesh: but to kill and destroy it: contrary to that saying of Saint Paul▪ No man ever yet hated his own flesh, Ephe. 5.29. but loveth & cherisheth it: see I pray you, how these men loved and cherished their bodies? Let us hear what Aug. saith, Tudeseris res humanas, & segregas te, ut nemo te videat: Cui proderis? tu ad hoc pervenisses, si nemo tibi profuisset? In Psal. 49. An quia veloces pedes tibi videris habuisse ad transeundum, praecisurus es pontem? Thou leavest the care of human things, and separatest thyself that no man should see thee: to whom dost thou good in so do doing? Hadst thou come to this perfection thyself if no man had done thee good? because thou hast quickly passed over, wilt thou cut off the bridge, that no man else should pass? See then Augustine maketh the heremitical life altogether unprofitable to men. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the habit and shaving of Monks. The Papists. BOth these superstitious customs, for Monks to be known by their cowls & error 95 shaven crowns, they receive and allow as commendable and fit for them to be known by. Beside some show of antiquity, scripture they have none: but their best reason is this: that as Senators & soldiers, Noble men & rustics are known by their apparel, so it is meet that Monks should be discerned from others by their habit, Bellarm. cap. 40. Our Rhem. use the same reason for shaven crowns, that it is a note of distinction between the Clergy and laymen, annot. 1. Pet. 5. sect. 2. And for priestlike garments, they allege out of Apocal. 1. vers. 13. how Christ appeared to john vested in a priestlike garment. Ans. 1. We deny not, but that it is convenient for Ministers to be discerned from others even in their apparel: which may be done by the gravity & modesty thereof in colour, in plainness, not necessary to bring in strange and ridiculous fashions of attire, such as Monks cowls are: yet Ministers are better discerned by other things, than their apparel, as they are described by S. Paul, 1. Tim. 3. But as for any such distinction of monks we allow not: for the very calling itself ought to be abolished. As for shaven crowns and beards, they are but tokens of Baal's priests, make the best of them you can. 2 Christ appeared in a long garment down to the feet: which they translate a priestlike garment, as though Christ were then going to Mass: The word is, podéres, which signifieth a long vesture, down to the feet, which was one of the high priests garments, and hereby is signified the priesthood of Christ: but what is this to the attire of Monks or priests? We deny not but long garments for their comeliness are fit for Ministers, according to the fashion of the country, but not as necessary, representing more holiness: for in the East countries, short garments were grave and comely enough: as the prophets had their mantles: and S. Paul maketh mention of his cloak. 2. Tim. 4.13. The Protestants. WE condemn both the habit and shaving of the Monks as superstitious, even as their whole life and profession is. 1 There is no one precept in the new testament concerning forms and fashions of apparel to be used by Clergy men, but only in general terms, that they should be modest and sober, and grave in their behaviour, 1. Tim. 3. The Levites and priests indeed in the law, had rules and precepts set them both for their vestures in the temple, and their ordinary apparel, Numb. 15.39. that it should be made with fringes in remembrance of the commandments. But who seethe not that such significations of apparel were Levitical, and merely ceremonious? such is the habit of Monks: for their cowls, saith the jesuite, signify their innocency, like unto children that are covered with veils like unto cowls. But to place any religion or holiness in apparel, as they did, (for it was thought a great privilege to be buried in a Monk's cowl) is abominable superstition: for such Monkish superstition our Saviour rebuked the pharisees, Math. 23.5. All their works they do, to be seen of men: for they make their Phylacteries broad, and make long the fringes of their garments. If the pharisees did abuse to vainglory and superstition, that kind of apparel which the law commanded: there can be no good use of Monkish habits, which the Gospel neither commendeth nor commandeth. As for shaven crowns: they were directly forbidden by the law of Moses, not only to round the tufts of their beard, as the Gentiles did, Leu. 19.27. but not to shave their beard, or make bald their head, Leuit. 21.5. And then it was a sign of holiness not to cut the hair, as in the Nazarites it appeareth, Num. 6. It was then the custom of the heathen and of their Idolatrous priests to shave themselves: How then dare the papists make that a sign of holiness now, which was a sign of profaneness, and heathennesses then? And is their religion so beggarly, that they must needs borrow their ceremonies of the heathen? 2 The great variety of their habits, & foolish significations of their shavings, do show what beginning they had. The Monks of Basiles order went in white, of Benet's rule in black, the Cistercians had white rotchets upon a black coat: the Grandimontenses a coat of nails, Fox. p. 154. with a black cloak upon. Some starred Monks: some jesuits, with a white girdle, & a russet cowl: some Celestines all in blue, both cloak, cowl and cap. The franciscans did wear ropes for girdles & treen shoes. They render also divers reasons of their shaven crowns: some say, it resembleth Christ's crown of thorns: some by shaving the hair, do signify the mortifiing of the affections, as cutting of things that are superfluous: some by bearing of the head, the simplicity and plainness of life. Bellarm. saith, it is a sign of repentance and conversion. Is not here good stuff, think you? Such rites, such ceremonies, such significations, such human traditions, I think the pharisees would have abhorred. For these are worse than their washing of tables, brazen vessels, pots, cups, and such like: And yet our Saviour saith of them, that they did lay the commandment of God apart, to establish their own traditions, Mark. 7.8. Lastly, let August. speak: Concerning the habit of ecclesiastical persons, thus he writeth: Aequè laicis patet coeli palatium dei mandata seruantibus quàm sanctimoniali▪ habitu praeditis sacerdotibus. De salutar. docum. cap. 8. The heavenly palace is as well open for Lay men, keeping the commandments of God, as for Priests in their holy attire. What profiteth it then, I pray you, to be buried in a Monks cowl? Again, Augustine found fault with certain dissolute Monks in that time, that suffered their hair to grow long: Against whom he urgeth the saying of S. Paul, 1. Corinth. 11.14. Doth not nature itself teach you, that it is a shame for a man to have long hair? And so he concludeth: Hoc quò pertinet, quaeso, tam apertè contra Apostoli praecepta comari? What meaning have you in this, to suffer your hair to grow, contrary to the precept of the Apostle? But this precept did no more belong to Monks, than all other Christians. Concerning the shaving of Monks, Augustine hath not one word at all, but of polling, and clipping the hair: he speaketh only against certain crinitos fratres, that nourished their hair and suffered it to grow of length. Nay, our Rhemists love shaving so well, that they defend the shaving of Nuns, and would prove it out of Hierome, who indeed speaketh of the cutting of their hair, not for any religion, but to avoid certain little beasts that bred between the skin and the hair, (you know what beasts they are) because they used not the baths, nor oil, as other women did, Fulk. 2. Thessal. 3. sect. 2. But whatsoever Hierome saith, it is flat contrary to Saint Paul's rule, who saith, It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, 1. Cor. 14.6. THE THIRD PART OF THE MONKS Canonical hours. The Papists. THe 3.6.9. hours, they say, are consecrated and devoted to prayer, which they call their Canonical hours: at the 3. hour the holy Ghost descended: at error 96 the 6. hour Peter went up to the top of the house: and at the 9 hour Peter and john went up to pray in the temple, Act. 3.1. And Daniel used to pray thrice in the day, Dan. 6.10. Ergo, those times ought to be consecrate to prayer, Rhemist. Act. 10. sect. 6. Ans. First, we deny that it can be gathered by any of those places, that these hours only ought to be set apart for prayer. Peter and john went up at the 9 hour, which was the time of the evening sacrifice, when the religious jews went up to pray. Secondly, Daniel prayed three times a day, but at what hours the text speaketh not: yet by this example, and by the other proofs alleged, we do gather, that at the 3.6.9. hour, that is not precisely at any of these times, but in the morning, when men rise up to their labours, at noon before their repast, and at night when they go to rest, it is meet and convenient that men should make their prayers unto God, and at other times also when they find themselves fit. Thirdly, the popish service hath nothing but the names of these hours: for they are all finished in the forenoon, they have their Nocturnes at midnight, their Prime early in the morning, whereas the sixth hour is at high noon, the ninth hour is the third hour before the Suns set, Fulk. ibid. The Protestants. WE deny not but that set times of public prayer are commendable, as we have our forenoon, and afternoon service: But at unseasonable hours, as at midnight, or the rising of the Sun, to call the people together, when they cannot conveniently be assembled, is but a superstitious custom. Again, it is profitable for men in the morning, noon, evening, though not precisely at any set hours, to direct their prayers unto God: but so to stint men's prayers, as that they ought of necessity to keep their hours, as though their prayers were then more available, it hath no ground out of scripture. 1 S. Paul saith, Pray continually, 1. Thessal. 5.17. Ergo, it is lawful to pray at all times, and one time as fit for prayer as another, if a man be prepared. Again, the same Apostle saith: I will that the men every where lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1. Timoth. 2.8. Out of these words we gather two arguments: First, prayers are no more bound to times, then to places: a man may pray every where, Ergo, at every time. Secondly, a man ought not to pray but when he is void of wrath, and is otherwise prepared: but it may be that at the stinted hours, of the 3.6.9. a man may be in wrath, and otherwise not fit, therefore he is not necessarily to be tied to those hours. 2 Augustine thus writeth: Cum quisque orationem quaerit, collocat membra sicut ei occurrerit. Cum autem non quaeritur, sed infertur appetitus orandi: hoc est, cum repent aliquid venit in mentem, quocumque modo invenerit hominem, non est utique differenda oratio. Lib. 2. ad Simplician. quaest. 4. When any man desireth to pray, let him dispose his body as he thinketh best: But when as it cometh not of his desire and seeking, but suddenly his affection is stirred up to pray, howsoever prayer findeth him (that is, whether standing or sitting) he must not in any case defer it and put it off to another time. This then is Augustine's mind, that a man should pray so oft as he hath a disposition thereunto, and not defer his prayer, as they do, which bind themselves to Canonical hours. THE FOURTH PART, CONCERNING THE maintenance of Monks. The Papists. error 97 THey neither deny that it is unlawful for Monks to labour with their hands, where necessity, bodily strength, the order of the Church doth require them, neither do they confess, that it is necessary for them to work: And so are not ashamed to maintain their idle, slothful, and Epicures life, Bellarm. cap. 41.42. Rhemists, Thessaly 2.3. sect. 2. But they may either live of the lands given to their houses, or else by their religious begging, cap. 44. 1 Monks are not now bound to work, having wherewithal to live beside of lands given unto them, because most of them are Priests, and do serve at the Altar, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, we grant that Ministers of the Gospel labouring in the word and Sacraments, aught to be maintained by the Gospel: But such are few or none of your Monks, who being fit for no other service either in the Church or commonwealth, are thrust into Monasteries by their friends: they are idolatrous Priests, and serve little better than at Baal's altar. If any of them be fit for the ministery, as we deny not but some have come out of your Cloisters, as Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, by whom the Church of God hath received much good: but they must come first out of your Dens, and relinquish their Monkish life, and labour amongst the people: so shall they be no more regular, but secular priests, as you term them. Secondly, the lands which were bestowed upon them, were first given upon an evil intent, that by their prayers they should redeem the souls of their founders, who most of them had committed some notable sin, & so pro remedio animarum, to help their souls, they built Monasteries: So King Ethelstane for killing his brother Edwin, built two Monasteries, Middleton and Michelney for his soul, Fox. pag. 152. King Offa for killing Ethelbert a good Prince, who came peaceably for the despousage of Atheldred his daughter, being pricked in conscience, gave the first Peter pence to Rome, pag. 114. Those lands therefore being given first for ungodly purposes, and continued by them for idolatrous uses, ought clean to be taken from them, and to be bestowed upon better uses, neither is it lawful for them in that sort to enjoy them. 2 They prove the impudent begging of Friars, which they call religious begging, to be lawful and commendable, by the example of Christ, who had not a place where to put his head, Luk. 9 and of his Apostles, that were charged not to possess gold or silver in their purses, Math. 10. Bellarm. cap. 45. Ans. First, I pray you where ever did you read that Christ went a begging? he lived not of alms, but gave alms, and judas was the almsman, though he played his part but evil. Augustine flatly denieth that you avouch: He saith that Christ's bag was as Fiscus regis, even as the King's Exchequer: and that what was given him, was as due as tribute money to the Prince: But the King, I trow, is not a beggar. Nisi putetis, (saith he) quia dominus petebat & indigebat, cui seruiebant angeli, qui de quinque panibus tot millia pavit. Unless you think (saith he) that Christ begged, and wanted, whom the Angels served, and who fed with five loaves not a few thousands, in Psal. 146. Secondly, if the Apostles were beggars, than they lived of alms, but that is untrue: for Christ saith, The labourer is worthy of his hire: but the labourer's wages is earned and deserved, it is no alms. The Protestants. FIrst we say, that no idle persons ought to be maintained in a Christian commonwealth, but they that have not any other necessary calling, should labour with their hands, and therefore Monks that are fit for no other service in the Church, aught to labour and work. 1 Saint Paul giveth a general rule: He that will not work, let him not eat, 2. Thessal. 3.10. speaking of those that have no necessary calling in the Church: Ergo, Monks must work, or else by S. Paul's rule, not eat. The Rhemists' answer, that this is but a natural admonition or counsel. Nay, it is a precept and commandment, that all in their several places and callings should labour, none live idly: for S. Paul saith not, this I counseled you, but this I warned you of, or denounced unto you, and he calleth those that followed not this rule, inordinate walkers. 2 Again, if you will needs have Monks, let them be as they were in times past: for than they were lay men and laboured with their hands, till anno. 606. when Boniface made a decree that Monks might use the office of preaching and Christening: but before that, Monks were forbidden by the general Council of Chalcedon, not to intermeddle with matters Ecclesiastical, Fox. pag. 154. But perhaps they will say, as they do, that some of them work, as their Nuns: And I pray you, why not their Monks too? I think their great bellies hinder them. Neither are their Monks altogether idle; for some of them in painting, carving, graving, and garnishing their Idols, are very cunning. But, according to the saying, they might better be idle then ill occupied, and as good never a whit, as never the better. 3. Neither is it to be permitted, that Friars should get their living by begging: for what are they else but valiant beggars? First, there ought to be no beggars in the commonwealth: as Deuteron. 15. Though the Lord say, that they should never be without poor or beggars, which should want their help, vers. 11. Yet vers. 5. this charge is given, that by them, that is, their default, there should not be a beggar in Israel: they should so provide for the poor, that they need not go a begging. There are also positive laws, to restrain the number of beggars, and therefore there is no reason, that by a number of idle vagrant persons, belly-god Friars, that begging order should be enlarged. Secondly, but seeing it can not be chosen, but there must needs be some beggars: they ought not to be young sturdy lubbers, that are able to work, as most of the Friars were, but such as are described, Luk. 14.21. where the King saith to his servants, Go out quickly, and bring hither the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind: Ergo, such lusty fellows ought to live by the sweat of their brows, not to eat up the bread of the poor. Lastly, in the sermons, Ad fratres in eremo, which are ascribed to Augustine, thus we read: Eia fratres mei, semper boni aliquid facite, quem tadet orare, Serm. 16. vel psallere non desistat, quem taedet orare, vel psallere, manibus laborare non desistat. My brethren, always be ye doing of some good; if you be weary of praying, sing, if of singing, then labour with your hands. And in the same place, old men only of 80. year old are exempted from working. And in another place Augustine showeth, that the Monks in his time did so ply their work, Vsque adeo, ut etiam naves oneratas in ea loca mittant, qua inopes incolunt: that they sent ships laden with necessaries, unto those places where the poor inhabited. De morib. eccles. cap. 32. Ergo, in Augustine's time Monks lived not by begging, but with labour of their hands. Thus by God's goodness we have finished this question, and this whole Controversy: One other question remaineth: whether the Monastical life be meritorious or not: which we have referred to another place, when we shall come to the question of Virginity in general and the privileges thereof. THE SEVENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE. MAny things, which Bellarmine in this controversy laboureth to prove, are agreed upon between us and our adversaries, and therefore we will spend no time in them. 1 We teach, as well as they, that there ought to be Magistrates, Princes and governors amongst Christians, contrary to that which the Anabaptists hold, that there ought to be equality among Christians: The holy Ghost, judg. 17.6. & 19.1. maketh this the cause of all disorder, At that time in Israel there was no King amongst them, but every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes. 2 We do hold, that even wicked Kings and Tyrants have power over the goods and lives of men, neither that it is lawful to disobey them, but in matters only belonging to our conscience, where it is better to obey God then men, jeremy 27.6. I have given, saith the Lord, all these lands to Nabuchadnezzar. 3 Concerning the power of Princes, we grant, that they may make laws and ordinances to govern the people by, Prou. 8.15. that they may punish the offenders of their laws, Rom. 13. They do not bear the sword for nought: That it is lawful for Christian Princes, upon just occasion, to wage battle, Luk. 3.14. john Baptist doth not condemn the calling of Soldiers, but teacheth them to use it aright. These things then being agreed upon on both sides: the several questions, wherein we differ from them, and they from the truth, are these. 1 Concerning the authority of the Prince in Ecclesiastical matters, three parts of the question. First, whether he have power over persons Ecclesiastical. Secondly, whether over their goods. Thirdly, whether in Ecclesiastical causes. 2 Whether the civil Magistrate may prosecute heretics to death: and whether he ought to be the judge of heretics, with other like questions. 3 Whether the positive and civil laws of Princes do bind their subjects and oblige them simply in conscience. This matter we have discussed before, Controuer. 4. quaest. 7. part. 1. 4 Whether the Pope ought or may excommunicate the Prince, or Emperor, or otherwise hath any temporal jurisdiction above him: this question also is handled before, Controu. 4. quaest. 8. part. 1. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING THE AVthoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiastical matters. THis question hath three parts. First, whether he have power over the persons Ecclesiastical. Secondly, whether over their goods. Thirdly, whether the Prince be chief in causes Ecclesiastical. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE AVTHOritie of the civil Magistrate over Ecclesiastical persons. The Papists. THe Clergy is not bound to keep and observe the civil and positive laws error 98 of Princes, if they be contrary to the Canons of the Church: neither ought they for any cause to be cited before the civil Magistrate, or to be judged by him, Bellarm. de Clericis, cap. 28. It is absurd (saith the jesuite) that the sheep should judge the shepherd, Bellarm. And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and overseers, Heb. 13.17. and to submit themselves unto them, from which rule neither Kings nor Emperors are exempted: Prelates must be obeyed, Ergo, not obey Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, the obedience here required we acknowledge, that it ought to be yielded by Kings & Emperors to those that have the oversight of their souls: for the Prince is bound to receive and believe all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church, agreeable to the word of God, under pain of damnation: and the Pastors are bound under the like pain to obey the Prince's laws, made according to the word of God. Secondly, wherefore the spiritual obedience of the civil Magistrate to the word of God, taught by the Pastors of the Church, is no exemption of them from their civil obedience: for every soul is subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13.1. Fulk. annot. 13. Heb. sect. 9 The Protestants. THat Ecclesiastical persons are subject to temporal governors, and are to be judged by their laws, the scriptures speak plainly. 1 Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Ergo, Bishops, yea the Pope himself, if he have a soul. The like saith S. Peter, 1.2.13. Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance. Solomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood, and put in Sadock. Paul appealed, and submitted himself to Caesar. Again, if Priests offend and commit any grievous sin, as of murder, theft, who shall punish them? The civil Magistrate only beareth the sword: They must either grant, that priests are no evil doers, which were to too gross: or if they be, that they are under the civil Magistrates power: for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance upon every evil doer, Rom. 13.4. In Augustine's time, the controversies between the Catholic and Donatist Bishops, were committed to the judgement of the Emperor. Ait quidam, Epistol. 162 saith he, Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari judicio purgari: Quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparaverit, 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 have been purged before the Proconsul, or civil Magistrate: As though (saith Augustine) the Proconsul did of himself intermeddle in this matter, and was not commanded rather of the Emperor so to do: unto whose charge that matter principally appertained, and whereof he shall make account unto God: Ergo, by his sentence, the cause of the Bishop principally was to be judged by the Emperor. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE PRINCE have power over Ecclesiastical goods. The Papists. THe goods of the Clergy both secular and Ecclesiastical, are and aught to error 99 be exempted from paying tribute to Princes; yet they have not this liberty, say they, by the Law of God, but by the grant of Princes themselves, 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 custom is grounded upon the law of nature, Bellarm. Ans. First, the Hebrew word signifieth rather Precedents, such as were the King's officers, not Priests, as Tremellius showeth: who were maintained by the King's provision, being officers of his household: for Genes. 41.45. joseph is said to marry the daughter of Potyphar prince, not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there used: for it is not like that joseph would match himself with an idolatrous priest's daughter. Secondly, but be it granted, this was but a politic constitution for that country: other Princes are not bound to Pharaoh his law. Thirdly, they gain nothing by this, but that it is an human constitution. The Protestants. THat Princes have authority to punish Ecclesiastical persons offending in their goods; either by displacing them, or by converting the Church possessions by them abused, to better uses, we have showed before, Contr. 5. quest. 6. part. 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute, subsidy, tax, unto the prince, thus now it is proved. 1 Our Saviour Christ paid poll money, Math. 17.25. Rom. 13. Every soul ought to be subject to the higher powers, and there vers. 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subjection: the argument therefore thus followeth: Clergy men are subject to Princes, therefore they ought to pay tribute. 2 Ex concessis, we reason thus from their own confession: That which Princes gave to the Church, upon good cause they may take away: but this immunity, not to pay tribute, was first granted, as they confess, to the Church, by Kings and Princes: Ergo, they have the same right, having just occasion, to take it from them again. What Augustine's judgement is, we have seen in the place before alleged. THE THIRD PART, CONCERNING THE PRINCE'S authority in causes Ecclesiastical. The Papists. error 100 THe Prince, they say, hath no authority to give voice deliberative or definitive in Counsels concerning matters of religion, nor to make laws Ecclesiastical concerning the same: Only they give them authority to execute the Ecclesiastical laws made by the Church, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 14.16. Bellarm. de pontiff. lib. 1. cap. 7. Argum. 1 Kings and Princes may in their own persons execute if they will, whatsoever their inferior officers do, as to hear and determine causes, as the judges and other Magistrates do: but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiastical function, as to preach, baptise: Ergo, he hath no authority in causes Ecclesiastical: for how can the Prince impart that to others, whereof he is himself incapable, as to give Bishops and Pastor's power to ordain, to preach, and such like, Bellarm. Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, the authority of civil Magistrates doth not give any thing to Ecclesiastical Ministers, which appertaineth to their office, as to ordain, preach, baptise, neither is the Prince to deal in these offices: yet may the civil Magistrates command them to execute their charge and duties according to the word of God. Wherefore it followeth not, Princes cannot execute the pastoral duties themselves: Ergo, they ought not to see them executed. David, Solomon, jehosophat, Ezechia, commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God, though it was not lawful for them, neither did they execute any thing proper to the Priest's office in their own persons; neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiastical functions: wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine, which he giveth forth of our Queen, jam re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex. And now (saith he) in England the Caluinists have a certain woman for their chief Bishop. De notis eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9 2 It doth not follow, that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiastical offices, as he may civil in his own person, if he have authority over both: No more than it followeth, that because Ecclesiastical persons do teach both civil Magistrates and Church officers their duties, and may in their own persons execute the one, that is, spiritual duties, that they may as well intermeddle in the other: But these two offices of Civil and Ecclesiastical government are distinguished, and must not be confounded. The Prince, though he have authority to command Ecclesiastical persons, yet being a civil Magistrate, is not to deal with the execution of spiritual duties. Bishops & pastors likewise have a spiritual charge over kings & princes, to show them their duties out of God's word, yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical, they ought not to meddle with mere Civil duties. The Prince hath the sovereignty of external government in all causes & over all persons, yet not alike, for Civil offices he may both command and execute; Ecclesiastical duties he commandeth only: Bishops and pastors have also a spiritual charge over all, prescribing out of God's word as well the duty of Magistrates, as of Ministers, but not alike, for the one they may fully execute, so may they not the other. The head in the natural body, resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth, in some sense: the head giveth moving to the whole body and all the parts thereof: but to the principal parts in the head the eyes, tongue, ears, it giveth beside the faculty of moving, the sense also of seeing, tasting, hearing: So in the commonwealth, by the Prince's authority all persons are kept in order, and urged to look to their charge, both civil officers and spiritual, as all the parts of the body receive moving from the head: But the civil officers receive power and authority beside, and their very offices of the King, as the parts in the head, receive sense from their fountain: but Ecclesiastical Ministers receive not their offices from the Prince, or any mortal man, but they have their calling according to the order of the Church of God. Argum. 2. For the space of 300. years the Church after Christ had no Christian governors, but all Heathen and Idol worshippers, yet then the Church was established, and prevailed: Ergo, Civil Magistrates ought not to deal in Ecclesiastical affairs, Bellarmine. Ans. 1. Even then also, the Heathen Emperors had authority in Church matters, and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion, they should have been obeyed: as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple, Ezra. 1. Darius' the Median, for worshipping the true God, Dan. 6. Fulk. Rom. 13. sect. 3. The heathen Emperors than had the same power, but they knew not how to use it: Christian Princes do succeed them in the same office, but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword. Secondly, we deny not but that in the time of persecution all things necessary for the spiritual building thereof may be had, without the Magistrate, as a Vineyard may bring forth fruit without an hedge, but it cannot enjoy peace, nor be in a perfect estate, in respect of the external government, but under good Magistrates, as the Vineyard may soon be spoiled, the wild boar and the beasts of the field may break in upon it having no hedge. The child being in the womb, though it have as yet small use of the head, but is fed by the navel, which is in steed of the mouth, hath in itself the lineaments and proportion of a human body, yet it wanteth the perfect beauty, till it be borne and come forth, and the head receive his office: So may the Church have a being in persecution, and the want of the civil head may be otherwise supplied, but it is not beautiful till the head be set up, and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand. Argum. 3. Princes have no cure nor charge of souls: Ergo, they are not to meddle with Ecclesiastical laws, Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 14. sect. 16. Ans. Parents have charge over the souls of their children, for they are charged to bring them up in the instruction and information of the Lord, Ephes. 6.4. Therefore Princes also have directly charge of the souls of their subjects according to their place and calling, by providing and making good Ecclesiastical laws, and compelling them to the true service of God: As the Ecclesiastical Ministers in another kind, and more properly are said to have the cure of souls, in feeding and instructing the people, Fulk. ibid. The Protestants. THe civil Magistrate, by the word of God, hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiastical laws, and to establish true religion, and see that all persons under their government do faithfully execute their charge: To say therefore that the Church officers are to devise laws concerning religion, and the Prince only to execute them, is to make the Prince their servant, and doth derogate too much from the princely authority: Neither do we give unto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiastical laws: for first, the Prince is not to prescribe what laws he listeth to the Church, Fulk. Hebr. 13.9. but such as only may require the true worship of God. Secondly, that it is expedient and meet, according to the commendable custom of this land, that the godly learned of the Clergy should be consulted withal, in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances, unless it be in such a corrupt time, when the Church governors are enemies to religion, for then the Prince, not staying upon their judgement, aught to reform religion according to the word of God, as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henry the 8. Thirdly, we do make exception of all such Ecclesiastical canons and ordinances, the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and governors of the Church: for our meaning is not, that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers, to make Ecclesiastical decrees, which do properly concern their office, as concerning the censures of the Church, excommunication, suspension, absolving, binding, losing, and such like, which things are incident to their pastoral office: and yet we grant, that the Prince hath even in these cases an overruling hand, to see that none abuse their pastoral office. But that any laws ought to be made without the authority of the prince, which the prince is bound, to execute, we utterly deny: And so we conclude, that the civil Magistrate hath power over all persons and in all causes, both temporal and ecclesiastical, in such manner as we have said. 1 S. Paul willeth, that prayers should be made for Kings and Princes, that under them we may lead a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, 1. Tim. 2.2. Ergo, it is their duty as well to procure religion by their authority, as civil honesty. Again, He beareth not the sword for nought, Rom. 13.4. He hath power to punish all evil doers: therefore also to correct evil ministers, & to make Ecclesiastical laws: for otherwise he should have no full power to correct the transgressors thereof. 2 We read that josua, David, Solomon, josia, did deal in ecclesiastical matters, which concerned religion and the worship of God. Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinary authority, not as Kings, but as Prophets. Nay, it was an ordinary power: for all the good kings of juda beside, as jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and others, did take care of religion: & this was so properly annexed to the kingly office, that idolatrous kings also took upon them to command false religion, as jeroboam set up two golden calves, and Ahaz king of judah commanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the pattern which he sent from Damascus, 2. King. 16.11. This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperors: as Constantinus, Theodosius, Martianus, made laws for the Church, Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 14. sect. 16. justinianus the Emperor decreed many things concerning Church affairs: as how excommunication should be used, how Bishops and Priests should be ordained, concerning the order and manner of funerals: that the holy mysteries should not be done in private houses. Carolus magnus decreed, that only the Canonical books of scripture should be read in the Church: he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word. Lodovicus Pius his son, and Emperor after him, ordained that no entry should be made into the Church by Simony: Fox. pag. 7. that Bishops should be chosen by the free election of the Clergy and the people. All these Emperors did lawfully exercise their princely authority in Ecclesiastical matters: Ergo, other princes may do the same still. 3 Augustine saith, Epistol. 50. Quis mente sobrius & c? Who in his right wits would say to the King, It pertaineth not to you, who in your kingdom is religious or sacrilegious, to whom it cannot be said, let it not pertain unto you, who in your kingdom will be chaste or unchaste? And in another place, Ad fratres in erem. serm. 14. Tunc justitia dicitur gladius ex utraque part acutus, quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs, & animam à spiritualibus molestijs. Then justice is rightly called a sword with a double edge, because it doth both defend the body from external and corporal wrongs, and the soul from spiritual vexation: That is, the sword of the Magistrate serveth as well to prune the Church, and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion, as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners. AN APPENDIX OR FOURTH PART OF THE Question, whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdom, and consequently of the Church in his kingdom. The Papists. THey do appropriate this title, to be called heads of the universal Church, to error 101 the Pope of Rome, most blasphemously: for there can be no head of the universal body but Christ: But for Princes to be called the head, that is, chief governors of the Churches in their kingdoms, they do abhor it. Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucy as to check and control King Henry the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church. 1 The heathen Emperors were not heads of the Church, being not so much as members thereof: therefore neither Christian Magistrates, which do succeed them in that authority, Rhemist. annot. 1. Pet. 2. sect. 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not: they were no true members of the Church, therefore could not be heads, that is, have the sovereignty of the external government: for wicked kings and princes do keep their magistracy & government still: who though they be not true members of the Catholic Church, yet aught to be obeyed as princes. 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not unto them, yet were they by God's ordinance appointed to be heads & governors of his people & protectors of his Church, & should have been, if they had not abused their authority. 3. Christian princes, though they have the same authority, which they had, yet now exercising the sword according to God's law, and being Nurses of the Church, may use and retain those princely titles in deed, to be called patrons and defenders of the faith, & head, that is, chief governors and protectors of the Church: which by right had been due unto the other, if they had used their authority as they should. 2 Christian princes are members of the Church, Ergo, not heads: for if they were heads, how could the Church stand without them, as it did in the time of persecution? Ans. First, as though the head is not a member and part of the body, though a principal one: so the Prince is a member of the Church, but a principal and chief member, not of the invisible Church, for so Christ is only head, but of a particular visible Church. Secondly, we deny not but that the invisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate, but a visible, flourishing, and well-governed Church cannot want a head or chief governor, that is as a wall or hedge unto it. The Protestants. TO be head of the universal Church is proper only to Christ, and in that sense is not communicable to any creature: for he is to his Church, as the head to the natural body, giving unto it influence of grace, spirit and life: he is therefore the only mystical head of the universal Church: But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chief governor of his kingdom, & of that particular visible Church, where he is king: We make him neither the mystical head, which is only Christ, (far be that blasphemy from us) nor a ministerial head, as they make the Pope to be as Christ's Vicegerent in the Church; but a political head, to keep and preserve the peace of the Church, and to see that every member do his office and duty. But this name we confess is unproperly given to the Prince, neither were we the first inventors of it: for the papists first gave it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which do sufficiently express the office of the Prince, and may be more safely used. If any man think it too high a name for any mortal man, and so not to be given to any, we will not greatly contend about it: But if any deny it to the Prince, as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters, we do stand stiffly for it; and are bold to affirm, that with much better right is this title attributed to the civil Magistrate than it was to the Pope: yea, and that it hath been of old given in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes, and may with a favourable exposition be still: and Princes also may receive this honour and title at their subjects hands, with protestation of their Christian meaning herein. 1 This phrase, for the King to be called the head, is not unusual in scripture, 1. Sam. 15.17. Saul is said to be the head of the tribes. Psal. 18.43. David the head of the nations: Isay. 9.15. The Prince or honourable man the head of the people: yea Princes are called Gods, Psal. 82.2. which is a name of greater Sovereignty, then to be called heads. Bellarmine answereth: Princes do rule over their subjects as men, not as Christians, and Kings are set over the people not as they are Christians, but politic persons: so the Prince is head of the kingdom, not of the Church, De pontiff. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cavil very sufficiently, we will set one Papist against another. It is all one (saith he) to call the Prince head of the Church of England, and head of the Realm of England: for if all Englishmen be his subjects, why are they not his subjects, as they are Christians? If the wife or servant be subject to the master or husband being infidels, doth their conversion, or name of Christians make them less subject, Fox. p. 1059 than they were before? Haec ille. Again, how far is this, I pray you, from Anabaptistrie, to say, that subjects, only as men, not as Christians, are in subjection to Princes? for doth it not follow hereupon, that as Christians they ought to have no superior or Magistrate? 2 It is sufficient for us, that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to every Prince in his own kingdom, them to the Pope, for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church: he is not the mystical head, neither dare they say so: for Christ only is the head in that manner: neither can he be the Ministerial head of the universal Church: for the Catholic Church is a body mystical, & must needs have a mystical head: neither is he the political head of any particular Church: for no Bishop can be a political head: because he that is the head and chief must have a coactive power, to bind his subjects to obedience: so hath not any Bishop: The Prince only beareth the sword, and enforceth obedience. Again, in a far divers sense is the Prince called the head, than the Pope was: for first the Pope challenged to be head of the universal Church: but the prince is chief only in his own kingdom. Secondly, the Pope would be an absolute head, to do all upon earth that Christ did, yea and more to, to bind and lose at his pleasure, to depose Kings, to dispense with the word of God, to constitute and make laws at his pleasure: in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him, Christus & Papa unum faciunt consistorium, & excepto peccato potest Papa, quasi omnia facere, quae potest Deus: Christ and the Pope make but one Consistory, Panormitan. & keep but one court; & sin only excepted, the Pope in a manner can do all things that God can do. But we do limit the power of the Prince: who is not to impose any laws upon the Church, but such as are agreeable to the word of God: neither do we make him a spiritual officer, as the Pope would be, but a civil governor, who by positive laws is to provide for the peace and welfare of the Church. Lastly, S. Peter saith, Submit yourselves to the King as the chief, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or most excelling: 1. Pet. 2.13. what is this else, but as to the head? what is it to be chief but to be head? But we will not much contend for the name, so they will grant us the thing: namely, that the Prince is a commander even in Ecclesiastical matters, as Augustine saith: In hoc reges Deo serviunt, si mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam, quae ad divinam religionem. Cont. Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings do good service to God, if they forbidden evil to be done, not only in matters pertaining to human society, but in things concerning religion. As for the title, to be called head, let them cease to call their chief Bishop so who hath no right unto it, and we will promise also to lay it down, though in good sense we might use it, though the Pope had never laid claim thereunto. THE SECOND QUESTION, CONCERNING THE authority of the Prince in punishing heretics. WE do willingly grant, that obstinate heretics and perverters of the faith, if they persist in their damnable opinions, and remain incorrigible, may, and aught to be cut off and punished by death, to make others to fear: so servetus at Geneva, and one Valentinus at Berne, both monstrous heretics, not amongst the Papists, but by the Protestants were worthily put to death. In this therefore we and our adversaries agree, that heretics may be punished by death by the civil Magistrate. If Luther, or any other have held any private opinion to the contrary, let them answer for themselves: but although we vary not in the principal, yet there are certain circumstances and accessaries greatly material, wherein they both dissent from us, and from the truth. Bellarm. de pontiff. lib. 1 cap. 7. 1 They would have the Magistrate only to be their executioner, the judgement of heresy they say belongeth to the Church: for they cited, examined, judged, disgraded, condemned heretics, and then gave them over to the secular error 102 power: this was the common practice of their Church. But we hold, that the hearing, judgement, sentence and condemnation of heretics belongeth to the civil Magistrate, as well as the execution: because these actions are proper to the civil sword, which the Magistrate beareth, Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5. The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the city where the civil Magistrate was wont to sit. Augustine is of the same mind, Cur in veneficos, vigorem legum exerceri just fatentur, in haereticos & schismaticos nolunt fateri? Cont. epist. Parmen. 1.7. Why do they grant, that the vigour of the law may justly be executed upon witches, and not as well upon heretics and schismatics? But the causes of witches are heard, judged, and handled before the civil Magistrate: Ergo, also the cause of heretics. Augustine's reason is out of the 5. Galath. 20. The works of the flesh are manifest, which are adultery, fornication, idolatry, witchcraft, and heresies are also reckoned up amongst: All these are works of the flesh, Ergo, the Magistrate being appointed to punish evil doers, hath as full right to deal against them all, as some. 2 We differ about the way and means to try an heretic by: They affirm, that he is an heretic only that is so judged by a general Council, or the sentence error 103 of the chief pastors of the Church: they would have an heretic tried by the constitutions and Canons of their Church, Annot. Tit. 3. sect. 2. Rhemist. We say, that an heretic is to be convicted by the scriptures, and that he that holdeth any opinion obstinately against the manifest authority of scripture, may be judged an heretic without a general Council: So Augustine writeth, answering the Pelagians, who objected that they were condemned without a Synod. Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat, ut aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando, nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit. As though a Synod need to be congregate or called, to condemn such open wickedness, as if never any heresy had been condemned but in a Synod or Council: Cont. 2. epistol. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 12. This is that heretical opinion, as they call it, which the Council of Constance condemned in john hus, & him together with it, because he said, That an heretic, whatsoever he be, aught first to be instructed, and taught with Christian love, & gentleness by the holy scriptures, & by reasons drawn out of the same, before he suffer corporal or bodily punishment: Fox. pag. 610. articul. 18. Which his saying is grounded upon that rule of the Gospel, Math. 18.15. That if we see one offend, we should first tell him privately; then before 2. or 3. lastly declare it to the Church: and if he will not hear the Church, that is, by scripture convincing him, then continuing obstinate, let him be as a publican. This rule the papists kept not in their bloody persecutions here in England: They put many hundreds to death, & were not able to convince any one of heresy: but in disputation were themselves put to silence and made ashamed: Their only arguments were the fire and faggot. 3 Again, they used unlawful ways and unjust, in sifting and examining, by error 104 cruel torments the poor innocents brought before them, neither showing accusers nor witnesses: john Browne Martyr appearing before Warrham and Fisher, two bloodsuckers, was burned with hot coals, his bare feet being set upon them: Fox. p. 1292. Cuthbert Symsons' fingers were grated with an arrow, and he himself piteously racked, to be made betray his innocent brethren, p. 2032. Tomkins hand was burned by Bonner, till the sinews sparkled again, pag. 1533. And these were the witnesses and accusers that were brought against them. This was clean contrary to the law of Moses: At the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death die, Deuteron. 17.6. Augustine saith, Quis judex accusantis sumat personam? etc. What judge would take upon him to be an accuser? Quaest ex utroque mix. 102 Our Lord Christ knew judas to be a thief (saith he:) yet because he was not accused, he did not cast him off. He counteth it a very unnatural thing for the judge to be an accuser, and to proceed without witnesses: which although in some criminal cases is more tolerable, yet in the cases of life and death ought in no wise to be used. The same judgement also Augustine giveth of that cruel custom of tormenting men, to convince them by their own mouth, which was invented by the heathen, but never more cruelly practised, then among the papists: Hoc intolerabile est (saith he) & rigandum fontibus lacrymarum, cum propterea torqueat judex accusatum, ne occidat nesciens innocentem, & fit per ignorantiam, ut & tortum & innocentem occidat, quem ne innocentem occideret, torserat: How intolerable a thing is it, and to be much lamented, that while the judge tormenteth the party accused, lest unwittingly he should put an innocent man to death; it falleth out that he adjudgeth 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 rack, or otherwise tortured, that he might confess the truth, and clear himself; it cometh to pass, that through extremity of the pain, he maketh himself guilty, and so the innocent is both wrongfully tormented, and unjustly 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 peril in the concealing of the truth, and no other way to sift it out, may be admitted: yet to use it as an ordinary course as the papists did, and in causes of religion, it is to too shameful, and of all Christians to be abhorred. 4 Where have 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 heresy? Was it heresy for james Brewster to hear one Sweeting to read many good things out of a certain book: or for the same Sweeting, when as the said james should say, Now the son of the living God help us, to answer, Now almighty God so do? yet for these heresies were they both condemned and burnt in Smithfield, Anno. 1511. Fox. pag. 818. A woman of Auspurge had like to have been burned, for ask a priest that carried the Host to a sick man with Taper-light, what he meant to go with a light at noon day, Fox. p. 894. if Mary the emperors sister had not made suit for her, Anno. 1550. Anno 1525. a Monk burned in France, because he had forsaken his abominable order and married a wife, pag. 896. johannes de Cadurco, being at a feast, where it was agreed that every one should bring forth this posy or sentence, because he brought forth this: Christ reign in our hearts, and prosecuted it out of the scriptures, was burned, Anno. 1533. pag. 897. A Tailor burned at Paris anno. 1549. for working upon an holy day: ex johan. Crispin. Fox p. 903. Ralph Hare constrained to abjure for saying before the Bishop of Winchester: The Lord is my witness, It is Symbolum Haereticorum, saith Winchester, a mark to know heretics 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 holy Martyrs, which for these and such other great heresies were put to death. And as the offences were very small, as we see, so their manner of proceeding was most cruel, void of all humanity. They spared not women with child: We have not forgotten that famous example of their cruelty, which shall be remembered to their perpetual shame and infamy: How they burned 3. simple women in the Isle of Garnsey, anno 1556. which had submitted themselves to their mercy, one of the three was great with child, which braced out of her womb in the midst of the fire, and was thrown in again. pa. 1944. They had no compassion of the tender age of children: In the town of Byrbroke, while Richard Chapman did penance in the Church, being enjoined to kneel barefoot, and bare legged all the sermon while upon the cold steps of the Church: a little boy for giving him his hat to kneel upon, was had into the vestry and piteously scourged. pa. 1047. Cruel Bonner burned Richard M●kins a child of 15. years, for speaking against the sacrament of the altar, who notwithstanding at the stake was taught to speak much good of the B. of London, and so did, pa. 1202. John Fatty his child being of 8. year old, for saying to one of the bishops Chaplains, that he had Balaams' mark, was scourged so cruelly, that within 14 days he died. Nay such was their cruelty, they condemned to death men that were distraught of their wits: as Collins and Cowbridge were burned being both frantic, see their story. page 1131. Where is now that lenity and compassion, which ought to be in the Ministers of the Gospel? Such cruelty was not heard of, no not amongst the heathen. Yea they break their own law: which suffereth a man once to abjure his heresy, but if afterward he be detected, he dieth without mercy. Fox. Anno. 1511. William Carder & Agnes Grebil were condemned, though they submitted themselves, and promised to be conformable to their religion. page 1277. Yet this law of theirs is most unjust, and contrary to the gospel, which faith, that if thy brother sin against thee 7. times in a day, and 7. times in a day turn again, and say, It repenteth me, thou shalt forgive him. Luke 17.4. Yet these men will forgive but once, and not that neither: But S. Paul saith, Tit. 3.10. An heretic after once or twice admonition reject. Bellarm. his best answer is by denying the text, saying, that it was not so red in former times: but thus, after once admonition. de laicis. cap. 22. There was more clemency used in Augustine's time: for then Bishops did not provoke the Magistrate to execute whom they had condemned, but did entreat the Magistrate to show compassion unto Heretics, not strait ways to punish them with death: Ne sic vitam istam finiant (saith Augustine) per supplicium, ut ea finita non possint finire supplicium, Lest they should so end this life by punishment, that the life being ended, they should never end their punishment. Epist. 54. And in another place, sic eorum peceata compesce, ut sint, quos poeniteat peccasse, Epist. 159. So restrain their sins, that they may yet remain to repent them of their sins: In those days therefore, men were not by and by punished with death to prevent their repentance, as in time of popery, but their repentance was expected, to deliver them from the sentence of death. Thus much of this question, as likewise of the whole controversy: and thus far also concerning such controversies, as are moved about the Church militant, here upon earth: which we have hitherto prosecuted by the Lords gracious assistance: In the next place we are to deal in those controversies, which concern the other part of the Church triumphant in heaven. 1. Timoth. 6.16. Soli Deo immortali Patri, Filio, cum spiritu sancto sit honour & imperium sempiternum. THE SECOND BOOK OR century, CONTAINING AN OTHER LARGE HUNDREDTH OF POPISH errors, and many of them foul heresies, divided into six several Controversies: CONCERNING THE ESTATE OF THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT IN Heaven, and the Sacraments of the Church Militant upon earth. Imprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas man.. 1592. ILLUSTRISSIMO ET INclytissimo Domino Comiti Essexio, non tam generis claritate, quam virtute sua nobili de re literaria, studiosisque omnibus semper optimè merito, Dominoque mihi multis nominibus colendissimo. SCite illud (Nobilissime Comes) ab Epicharmo olim dictum perhibetur: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Qua sententia monet, neruos atque artus esse sapientiae, non temere credere: Idque pulchrè depingi solet oculatae manus effigie: ut ne vel manu contrectare, vel pugillo premere, id est, mentis consensu & judicio approbare audeamus, quod non prius penitus exploratum habuerimus. Hoc sequi consilium si nostrates voluissent, (papicolas volo, et pontificiae haerese●s sectatores Anglos) si singula ad trutinam expendissent prius, ad quae postea admoverunt manus, non tam temere & imprudenter callidis doctoribus aurem praebuissent, nec tam facile & cito a sana doctrina descivissent. Multi enim apud nos sunt imperiti homunciones, & indoctae mulierculae (quanquam & doctos etiam aliquos, et satis cordatos viros ex isto genere agnouerim) qui nec scientia armati, nec animi proposito stabiles, nescientes lethal, non minutim & guttatim, sorbillarunt, sed plenò gutture hauserunt venenum: dum nihil probantes, vel examinantes, se papisticae superstitionis astutijs illaqueari passi sunt. Haec dum meeum seriò cogito, & altiùs tanquam ex animi spècula prospiciens contueor; non ex alijs initijs, quam temeritatis, & ignorantiae, hoc tam magnum malum enatum & exortum video. Jgnorantiae est, quòd veritate spreta & neglecta, errores sponte & liberè imbiberunt & amplexati sunt: temeritatis verò, quòd se, nullo delectu habito, seditiosis & impijs magistris in disciplinam tradere volverunt. Qui non Epicharmi philosophi humanum, sed Pauli Apostoli divinum consilium respuunt: 1. Thes 5.21. qui sic monet, Omnia probate, & quod bonum est tenete. Contra istos etiam satis nos cautos dedit dominus Christus, Math. 7.15. sic praemonens, Cavete a Prophetis mendacibus, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium, sed intrinsecus sunt lupi rapaces. Cum igitur multos quorundam insidijs deceptos in fraudem illici, & in errores toto impetu praecipitari cernerem, idque non alij principio, quam ipsorum ignorantiae tribuendum esse: operae precium facturum duxi, si quis papisticae superstitionis capita in synopsin quandam conijcere studeret, et passim verae fidei ex scripturis adhibens antidotum, universam doctrinam pontificiam uno intuitu conspiciendam proponeret. Hoc opus tam necessarium; cum diu expectassem, dum aggrederentur, alij, cum neminem huc animum applicasse, aut id in animo habere perspexeram: Ego tandem prodij è multis millibus ad hoc onus sustinendum minimè omnium idoneus. Qui me operam meam non perditurum, sed aliquid Ecclesiae commodi allaturam mihi persuaseram, si in isto opere desudarē, ut haberent nostrates, quo adversus haeresin pontificiam instructiores esse possint. Numerum si quis quaerat haerese●n, quas Romana ecclesia orbi nostro propinavit, mensuram omnem & modum superant, & ad immensam molem excrescunt: Trecentos ego, & plures hoc opere percurri errores pontificios, nec omnes tamen complexus sum. De civitat. Dei. lib. 19 ca 2. Varro scriptor ille copiosus, & vir multae lectionis (ut scribit August.) philosophorum sectas usque ad ducentas octoginta octo numeravit et recensuit. Sed a papistis huius seculi errorum varietate & multitudine veteres illi superantur. Scripsit non multis abhinc annis libellum Tilemannus quidam Heshusius, qui sic inscribitur: Sexcenti errores pontificij: Geminavit ille & duplum effecit numerum hunc, quem nos secuti sumus. Trecentos nos malumus, quam sexcentos ponere: Non quòd non putem, tot vitijs & corruptelis superstitionem pontificiam scatere: vel non posse tot colligi illius synagogae errores: Sed id feci iam partim, quia praecipua capita maximè prose●ui cupiebam, caetera missa faciens (quanquam credo paucissima sint, quae me in hoc opere subterfugerint) partim, quia distinctius ille interdum eorum sententias profert, quàm opus habuit, in diversa loca dispertiens, quae commodè ad unam classem referri poterant. Breviter a me omnia tractata, & tanquam per saltum decursa sunt: ad amussim enim singula expendere, & omnes rimari angulos, longioris esset operis, & viribus meis maioris. Atque cum ego Enchiridion potius conficere volui, quod (ut eleganter Aug.) manibus possit adstringi, non quod armaria possit onerare, ut fusius iam & uberius singula explicentur, non brevi Enchiridio (ut idem ait) manus debuit impleri, sed grandi studio pectus accendi. Enchirid. cap. 5. Tuo verò Honori (Nobilissime Comes) hanc mediam istius operis partem consecratam volui: Primò ut munusculo hoc prioris doni tenuitatem compensarem: ut libelli illius, quem tuo honore indignum, tuo tamen nomine in publicum emittere ausus sum, secundae nostrae lucubrationes indignitatem praestarent. Jterum verae te religionis & professionis evangelicae, non fautorem solum, sed patronum eximium norimus omnes, & libenter veréque agnoscimus. Nobili enim vestrae familiae id insitum credo est. Jn te enim avita virtus repullulat, & patris resplendet imago: Qui non tam evangelio ornamento, cum viveret, quàm evangelium ipsi honori fuit. Titulus etiam vester id indicat: Quantum enim Essexiorum Comitum studio evangelii negotium promotum sit, ignorare non possunt, qui Cromwelli Nobilissimi Comitis Essexij meminisse velint. Quid verò nomen? Nonne auspicato tibi obtigisse videtur? ut omnes iam ad superbos evangelii hostes deuorandos, natum nobilem Devorosum intelligant? Cui ergo iustiori titulo hanc operis partem nuncuparem, quàm tibi, facile non occurrebat quispiam. Tertiò denique vestro patrocinio opusculum hoc commendatum volui, ut tui nominis & nobilitatis veluti alis & umbra tectum, facilius linguarum vel vitaret asperitatem vel minus pertimesceret. Si quis enim leviter in nos insultans verborum telis nostra haec appetere gestit: Augustini illud responsum a meferet. Nunc ergo (ait) ne tui stomachi follis indigesta maledictorum cruditate rumpatur, Cont. julian. Pelagian. lib. 2. in hunc euome, si audes calunniosas tuas vanitates, vestra scilicet virtus (Optime Comes) haec nostra in tutelam suscipiens, de iniustis hominum querelis & contumelijs aut penitus securum, aut minus sollicitum dabit: Quibus ego sic exorsus dicerem, agite boni viri, in nobilem hunc tela vestra conijcite: nisi per illius latus, causa nostra non perfoditur: Et sic tandem coeptis desisterent, ne dum nostra convitijs convellerent, tuo honori vim attulisse viderentur. Valeat, vivat, vigeat Nobilitas tua: Et pergas adhuc illustrissime Domine, quod etiamnum facis, bonos fovere, virtutem amare, religionem colere: Et te vicissim amet, foveat, servet incolumem Deus optim. Max. in perpetuum. Tuo Honori addictissim. Andr. Willet. HERE FOLLOW THE controversies concerning the Church Triumphant. THey are two in number: The first is as touching the condition, office and ministery of Angels: The second of and concerning the Saints departed. THE EIGHT CONTROVERSY concerning Angels. THis controversy containeth 3. questions. First, of the Hierarchy and holy degrees of Angels: Secondly, of their ministery and office: Thirdly, of the worship and invocation of Angels. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERning the Celestial Hierarchye, or degrees of Angels. THis question hath like wise two parts: First, how many degrees there be of Angels, Secondly, whether Michael be the Prince of the Angels. THE FIRST PART OF THE DIVERS orders and degrees of Angels. The Papists. THey do boldly affirm, that there are nine orders of Angels, and those that do doubt of it, they charge with infidelity and blasphemy: There are first principalities, then potestates. 3. powers. 4. dominations: Eph. 1.21. 5. there are thrones. Coloss. 1.16. unto these ad 4. other, Cherubin, Seraphim, Angels, Archangels: so have we nine in all. Rhemist. annot. Ephe. 1 sect. 4. The Protestants. AS of the diversity of names we gather, that there are diverse orders, so to error 1 inquire of them more subtly, to define their number, and appoint their degrees: it is a point not only of foolish curiosity, but also of ungodly and dangerous rashness, ex Caluino. Fulk. ibid. Augustine saith, Quid inter se distent quatuor illa vocabula, throni, dominationes, principatus, potestates, dicant qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt, ego me ista ignorare confiteor. What difference there is between these four words, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, let them tell us, that be able, so they can prove that they tell us: for my part, I confess I know it not. August. Enchiridion. cap. 58. With Augustine therefore we confess, that as it appeareth by these several names, there are distinct orders of Angels: so how many there be, and how they are distinguished, the scripture hath not revealed unto us: and it were curiosity for us to inquire: We shall then know, when we shall be like unto the Angels. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER MICHAEL be the prince of the Angels. The Papists. error 2 THey say, that in heaven beside God himself, there is another commander and captain of the Angels, even Michael the prince of the Angels: which place the devil had in the beginning before his fall. For as the scripture saith, the devil and his angels, meaning, that all evil angels are subject unto him: so by Michael and his angels, we understand all good angels, that are likewise subject to him, Apocal. 12.7. Rhemist. Bellarm. de pontiff. lib. 1. cap. 9 The Protestants. FIrst, Michael in that place signifieth Christ, who is Lord of the angels; for the angels cannot be said to be any other Michael's angels, but only the angels of God and Christ: Fulk. ibid. This is also proved by the text, vers. 10. Now is come salvation, the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ, for the accuser of the brethren is cast out. Here he is called Christ, which before is named Michael. Augustine also so expoundeth it, Michaëlem intellige Christum: By Michael understand Christ: Homil. 9 in Apocalyps. Secondly, it followeth not, that as there is a chief and captain of the evil angels, so amongst the good there should be a chief angel above the rest, beside Christ: for it is sufficient that there is one Lord and prince of the angels, even Christ. Secondly, neither is it proved out of scripture, that amongst the devils there is one captain and great devil to whom the rest were subjects: for whereas the Pharisees objected, that Christ cast out devils through Beelzebub the prince of the devils, Mark. 3. if either the Pharisees did then so mean, or any shall now gather upon their words, that there is a great master devil that ruleth and commandeth the rest, it was in them but a pharisaical dream, and in the other a popish collection. We deny not, but that there may be degrees in power and angelical gifts both among the good and bad angels, as there shall be degrees in glory among the Saints: yet the Saints shall not be princes one over the other, no more are the angels now. Thirdly, mark the answer of our Saviour in that place, If Satan cast out Satan, Mark. 3. Here Satan is made a common name to all evil spirits. But Apocalyps. 12. where mention is made of the devil and his angels, the text saith, The great dragon, the old serpent, called the Devil and Sathanas, vers. 9 Here the name Sathanas, is given to the prince of the devils: so there is not one Sathanas, but many. And where our Saviour calleth the devil the prince of the world, john 14. S. Paul calleth them all principalities and powers, worldly governors, and princes of the darkness of this world, Ephes. 6.12. So there is not one prince of the devils, but they are all princes. Thus Augustine expoundeth that place, Draco pugnavit & angeli eius: id est, diabolus & homines voluntati eius obtemperantes: The dragon fought and his angels, that is, wicked men obeying his will, Apocalyps. Hom. 9 So by Augustine's sentence the devils are not subjects to the great devil, but they are all princes and commanders of wicked men. THE SECOND QUESTION OF THE ministery and function of Angels. THis question hath two parts: first, of the external ministery of angels, in the protection, and defence of the Church. Secondly, of their spiritual office about the prayers of God's servants. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING the defence and protection of Angels. The Papists. MIchael (say they) is the protector and keeper of the whole Church of Christ, error 3 Dan. 10.21. And as earthly kingdoms have their special angels for their protectors, so also have particular Churches, Dan. 10. Rhemist. annot. 1. Apocal. sect. 9 The Protestants. THE whole Church hath Christ himself, who is the true Michael, Fulk. ibid. for her protector and defender: And so is that place in Daniel to be understood. Augustine also by Michael understandeth Christ: the name also signifieth as much: Michael, that is, one like unto God: see more of this before: Controv. 4. quaest. 1. The scripture sayeth. All power is given to Christ, and he is with his Church to the end of the world: Math. 28.18.20. He therefore is the chief patron and protector of his Church. Secondly, It cannot be proved out of scripture, that kingdoms have their special Angels protectors, for Dan. 10. The Princes of the Persians and Grecians, were not Angels but earthly princes: for Angels do not resist Christ and his Angels defenders of the Church, as the Prince of Percia did▪ ver. 13 Fulk. ibid. but all the Angels of heaven are ready to serve the Lord at his pleasure, for the defence of his Church, without any limitation of place, Zachar. 1.10. These are they whom the Lord hath sent, to go through the world. The Angels execute their message, not in several countries but in the whole world. The Papist. error 4 Every one hath from his nativity an Angel for his custody and patronage against the wicked, before the face of God. Gen. 48.16. jacob saith, The Angel that hath kept me from my youth up. Acts 12.15. It is his Angel. Rhemist. ibid. Math. 18.10. Their Angels behold the face of my Father. Ergo, every man hath his proper Angel. Answ. 1. jacob by the Angel understandeth Christ, to whom it is proper to bless God's children: the Angel bless thy children saith he, Gen. 48.16. This Angel appeared unto him in Bethel, and is called the God of Bethel. Gen. 31.13. with this Angel jacob wrestled, 32. which was God, as it appeareth by the name of jacob, he is called Jsrael, because he had prevailed with God, and the place is called Peniel, I have seen God face to face: Other proper Angel jacob had none, for all the Angels of God were appointed for his defence. Gen. 32.1. He met an host of God's Angels, and accordingly called the place Mahanaim. 2. Neither of the other places prove that men have proper Angels. Math. 18. The children of God are said to have their Angels: not theirs, as every man his proper Angel, but theirs in common, because they were deputed for their defence. Act. 12. Peter at that time was delivered by one Angel, but it followeth not, that therefore he was his proper Angel. The Protestants. WE nothing doubt of the protection of God's Angels: but that every one hath a proper Angel appointed for his protection from his nativity, out of scripture it is not proved. 1. Sometime one Angel hath the charge of a multitude. Exod. 23.20. The Lord saith to all the people of Israel, I send mine Angel before thee, to keep thee in thy way. 2. Sometime many Angels are ready for the defence of one man: Gen. 32.1. an host of Angels met jacob. Psa. 91.11. He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee all in thy ways: Ergo, every man hath not his particular proper Angel. 3 Luke 16.22. The poor man is said, being dead, to be carried not by one Angel, but by the Angels, into the bosom of Abraham. But if he had one Angel appointed to be the precedent of his life from his nativity, it had been also part of that Angels charge, to have conveyed his soul into Heaven. So Augustine writeth: Si bene vixerimus, ubi a carnis vinculo anima liberata fuerit, mox in occursum nostrum Angelorum chorus occurret. De salutarib. document. cap. 39 If we lived well here, when as the soul is gone from the body, the holy company of the Angels are ready to meet us, he sayeth not one Angel, but the whole chore or company. THE SECOND part, WHAT OFFICE the Angels have about our prayers. The Papists. THeir opinion is, that the Angels do offer up our prayers unto God. Haeres. 5. And they would prove it by that place Apocalyps. 8.2. An Angel stood by the Altar, with a golden censer, and much incense was given unto him to offer with the prayers of the saints. Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ans. Augustine upon this place saith, that this Angel is Christ, Thuribulum aureum est corpus eius sanctum, the golden censer is his body, ex quo Deus ●dorem suavitatis accepit, out of the which God smelled a sweet savour. Homil. in Apocalyp. 6. And in another place he saith, Vt altare sanctificat dona, sic Christus preces nostras, as the altar sanctifieth the gift, so Christ doth our prayers▪ quaest. in evangel. 34. First therefore this place is understood of Christ, not of any Angel. 2. If this place might be understood of Angels, that they have some ministery about our prayers, it maketh nothing notwithstanding for popish invocation of Angels: for the Angel here commendeth not the prayers of the Saints by his merit, but by the much incense given unto him, to add to the prayers of the Saints to make them acceptable, which is the sweet smell and savour of the precious d●ath and merits of Christ. Fulk. in hunc locum. Augustine indeed sometime ascribeth such an office unto the Angels to carry up our prayers to Heaven, as their charge is to carry up our souls: not as mediators or intercessors, but as the Lords messengers and agents here upon earth, to report unto him our affairs: dicuntur Angeli preces nostras, & vota Deo offer, non ut deum doceant, qui omnia antequam fiant, novit, sed ut super his dei voluntatem consulant. The Angels are said to offer up our prayers and vows unto God, not to inform or instruct the Lord, but only to consult and know his pleasure: tom. 9 de dilection. Cap. 3. & in Psalm. 74. for the Angels have two offices, the one, to execute the commandment of God in the world, and to attend upon him to receive their charge, Math. 18.10. the other, to return unto God as faithful messengers the success of their business in the world. Zechar. 1.10. Now whether the Angels be appointed of God to report unto him our sayings and doings, Fulk. Apo. ●. sect. 2. as other affairs of our life, the scripture no where evidently showeth. Neither, if it were granted, would it any thing help their popish invocation of Angels. Rhemist. allege Tob. 12.12. to prove the offering of our prayers by Angels. Answer, It is neither canonical Scripture, nor agreeable unto it: Fulk. annot. Coloss. 2. sect. 3. The Protestants. THe scripture always maketh Christ our only Mediator, neither Angels nor Saints, by whom our prayers and all other spiritual sacrifices are offered unto God. Fulk ibid. 1 Hebrew. 13.15. Let us by him offer the sacrifice of praise always to God. 1. Peter. 2.5. You are an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, by jesus Christ. Ergo, Christ jesus is our only Mediator. Secondly, Galatian. 3.19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. Ergo, the Angels are one office, and the Mediator another. Augustine sayeth: Quòd non aliquem ex Angelis dicit Mediatorem, 1. Tim. 2. sed ipsum Dominum nostrum jesum Christum habes alio loco: unus (inquit) Deus, & unus mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus jesus. That the Apostle calleth not any of the Angels, but only jesus Christ our Lord, Mediator, we have in another place: There is one God, saith he, and one Mediator of God and man, the Man jesus Christ. AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of this question, whether Angels or Saints know our hearts. The Papists. THe Angels and other Celestial spirits do know our hearts and inward repentance: Haeres. 6. And between the Angels and the blessed souls of Saints, there is no difference in this case, the one being as highly exalted, and near God, as the other, in whom and by whom only they see and know our affairs. Luke 15.10. There is joy in heaven▪ in the presence of the Angels over one sinner that repenteth. Ergo, they know our repentance. Rhemist. Lu. 15. Sect. 2. Ans. 1 Our hearts and inward repentance are not known to the Angels, but by the fruits, and true effects thereof. 2 Although the elect, after the resurrection shall be like in glory to the Angels, yet it followeth not, that they shall be like in all things, much less that their souls now in heaven, be in all things like unto the Angels, whose presence and ministery God useth in the preservation of his chosen. 3 That all things done in the world may be seen in God, as in a glass, is but a profane speculation, and the devise of an idle brain. Fulk. ibid. Argum. 2 Abraham had knowledge of things in earth, which were not in his time, as that they had Moses and the Prophets' books, which he never saw. Luk. 16. ver. 29. Rhemist. Answer: First, In this narration many things are spoken parabolically, out of the which we must not ground any doctrine not taught else where in scripture: for you may aswell say that souls have fingers and tongues, and that elemental water will quench hell fire, as that Abraham knew what books were written after his death. Secondly, Haeres. 5. Albeit that the doctrine of the Church comprehended in the scriptures, might be revealed to Abraham after his death, yet it followeth not, that he knew all things, as you affirm the saints do, by beholding the Majesty of God. Fulk. annot. ibid. The saints therefore in heaven know so much as the Lord thinketh good to reveal unto them, they know not all things. The Protestants. WE deny not, but that as Prophets and holy men in this life, may know many secret things revealed unto them by the spirit of God, as Peter found out the secret fraud of Ananias, & Sapphirae: Eliseus being absent found out Gehezi his corruption: yea, he could tell what was done in the King of Syria his chamber: so the Lord may reveal unto the saints in heaven at his pleasure, some things done upon earth. But that they received any such gift of God, to know all things done upon earth, it is a great untruth, and clean contrary to the scriptures. 1. Solomon sayeth in his prayer unto God: Hear thou in heaven, in thy dwelling place, and give unto every man according to his ways, as thou knowest his heart, for thou only 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 judge of all men, and a rewarder of them according to their ways: But the Lord only is judge. Ergo. Again, the words themselves be plain, that God only knoweth the heart: so that what knowledge of secrets the Saints have, it is by revelation, not by searching the heart. Again S. Paul saith: No man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him: so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God. 1. Corinth. 1.11. the Rhemist. answer that no man knoweth the secrets of the heart naturally, but by extraordinary gift he may, as the Prophets did. Ans. No man ever had or can have a general gift to know the heart, but when God seethe it good to reveal it: for otherwise the comparison holdeth not: The spirit of God only knoweth the things of God: which also is given to men to know, but not by receiving any gift, to search and look into the nature and heart as it were of God (for then should they know all the secrets of God, which never any did:) but only by revelation of the spirit, which openeth Gods secrets unto them, so far as it is convenient and needful. Even after the same manner the spirit of God may reveal the secrets of the heart of man, not by giving them a general gift themselves to look into the heart, as into a glass, but by revealing such things, when the Lord seethe it expedient. Neither had the prophets an inherent gift and dwelling in them, to know secrets, but the word of God was inspired into them at times, as they had need, as we see in Nathan 2. Sam. 7.3.4. in Elisha. 2. King. 2.15. in Isaiah. 2. Kin. 20.4. And though Paul was taken up into heaven, and saw many secrets, yet he knew not all: for thus he saith of himself, If I knew all secrets: 1. Corinth. 13.2. Ergo, no man ever received this gift, to search the heart: but it is proper unto God, who will not give his honour to another. 2. Augustine saith, Nescire mortuos quid hic agatur dum hic agitur: that the dead know not what is done here, while it is in doing. But they understand either by relation of those that depart this world, or else by the Angels: Non quidem omnia, sed quae sinuntur indicare: sicut Prophetae, nec hic omnia cognoscebant. sed quae illis esserevelanda dei providentia iudicarat. de cura pro mortuis. cap. 15. Neither do they know all things, but what God suffereth to be known, as neither did the Prophets know all things while they lived, but what God in his divine providence thought good to reveal unto them. I note out of this saying of Augustine, three things. FIRST, What great uncertainty of opinion here is: How the dead should come by the knowledge of human affairs, the Papists think they have it by God's gift: otherwhile they say, they see all things in God, as in a clear glass. Augustine sayeth, they know them by the Angels, or by men newly departed this life: so that it appeareth to be but a mere conceit and imagination, that they have any such knowledge, whereof there is no surer ground. Secondly, Augustine saith, they know not things presently done, but afterward, contrary to the Papists. Thirdly, they know not all things, as the Prophets also did not, but what the Lord revealeth unto them: wherein also he is contrary to our adversaries. THE THIRD QUESTION CONCERNING THE worship of Angels, first in general, then in particular, of invocation. The Papists. THey say that the divine honour and adoration due unto God alone, Haeres. 7. is not to be given to Angels: But there is a religious reverence, honour and adoration, which is not to be denied to Angels and Saints, Rhemist. annot. Apocalyps. 19 sect. 4. 1 josua fell down before the Angel and worshipped, josua 5. Rhemist. Ans. He worshipped not an Angel, but the Lord Christ himself the captain of the Lords army: for it was a divine worship: He is bid to put off his shoes, as Moses was, when God appeared out of the fiery bush, Exod. 3. But a divine worship (by your own confession) is due only to God, Fulk. annot. Coloss. 2.3. 2. 1. Timoth. 2.21. I charge thee before God and the Lord jesus Christ, and his elect Angels, that thou observe these things: Ergo, Angels may be adored and reverenced, Rhemist. Ans. Saint Paul maketh here the Angels witnesses of his weighty charge: so Moses calleth heaven and earth to witness, Deut. 30.19. may we therefore conclude, that he yielded any religious worship to heaven and earth? Fulk. ibid. The Protestants. AS for due reverence, which is of love, not of any service, there is no question, but we ought to yield it unto the Angels. But all religious service or worship is due only to God, and whosoever man or Angel requireth, or receiveth any religious worship or service, usurpeth that which is due unto God, Fulk. Apocal. 19 sect. 4. 1 Apocal. 19.10. and 22.9. john fell down to worship the Angel: but the Angel suffered him not: See thou do it not, (saith he) for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, worship God: Ergo, Angels are not to be adored with any religious worship. Rhemist. First, he forbiddeth him only to worship him with divine adoration. Ans. The words are general: he saith not worship God, with this kind of service: but worship God. Rhemist. Secondly, you say, that john so worthy an Apostle was not ignorant of that point, that Angels were not to be worshipped as God: we may reply also, that if john had known that this other kind of service was unlawful, he would not have done it. Ans. john sinned not of ignorance, but of forgetfulness, in this ecstasy of his mind, while he beheld the glory of the Angel, as likewise through his frailness and forgetfulness he committeth the like again, cap. 22. which john would not have done, being once before admonished, had he not presently forgotten himself: But the other error of worshipping the creature for the Creator, was too gross an error for the Apostle. Rhemist. Thirdly, he was deceived in the person, taking the Angel for Christ, and therefore was not culpable at all in this fact, in giving divine honour to the Angel, for he sinned only materially, not formally. Ans. First, john was not ignorant, that he was an Angel, and not Christ, for he saith, he was one of the seven Angels that had the seven vials. Secondly, though he sinned of ignorance, yet was it a sin: for the Prophet, which believed the old Prophet, sinned grievously, as it appeared by his punishment, though he did it ignorantly, 1. King. 13. Wherefore it is a gross error of your Schoolmen, that say, a man sinneth not, if he worship the devil in the shape of an Angel ignorantly. Rhemist. Fourthly, the Angel would not receive this worship at john's hand, whom he knew to be in great favour with God, and greater than some Angel. Ans. First, though hereafter the children of God shallbe made equal to the Angels in glory, yet in this mortal life they must needs be inferior, seeing Christ himself, in respect of his passion, was inferior to the Angels, Heb. 2.9. Secondly, the Angel would not have taken this homage at any other man's hands, beside john: for he giveth a reason, that he is not only his fellow servant, but also of his brethren. So for all their shifts and cavils, we strongly conclude by this example, that no religious honour ought to be given to Angels. 2 Honoramus Angelos, charitate non servitute (saith Augustine) nec eis templa construimus: We honour Angels with the duty of love, not of service, neither do we build temples unto them. Quod ergo colit summus Angelus, id colendum etiam est ab homine ultimo. That therefore which is worshipped of the highest Angel, the man of lowest degree ought also to worship, De vera religion. cap. 55. Ergo, no worship due unto Angels, but all unto God. THE SECOND PART OF THE INVOcation of Angels. The Papists. Haeres. 8. THey hold, that it is lawful to direct our prayers unto Angels, Rhemist. Coloss. 2. sect. 3. Yea, and because they pray for us, and deal with God to procure mercy for us, they may justly be called our advocates. Angels are deputed for our protection (which is nothing but advocation) Dan. 10.23. Math. 18.10. Rhemist. annot. 1. john 2. sect. 5. Ans. First, the argument followeth not: for the Angels at the appointment of God, may serve for our protection and defence, though they be not advocates for us, to obtain remission of our sins. Secondly, the places alleged prove no such advocation of Angels, but only defence and protection. Dan. 10.23. The Angel was ready at the first prayers of Daniel, but he was letted a while. This proveth, that angels may know our prayers when it pleaseth God, and be ministers of his help unto us, which we deny not: not that they are our advocates. The Protestants. THat angels are not to be worshipped, nor invocated, as mediators, intercessors, or advocates, the scripture speaketh evidently. 1 Coloss. 2.18. Let no man beguile you in the humbleness and worshipping of Angels: Ergo, not lawful to pray unto them, or to worship them. Rhemist. The Apostle speaketh here against the wicked doctrine of Simon Magus, that affirmed that the angels both ill and good, were mediators for us unto God, and against the superstition of the jews, that worshipped the angels by whom the law was given. Ans. The Apostle condemneth both these superstitions, as likewise the popish invocation of angels: because all will-worship is forbidden, which is not after the prescript of God's word, Coloss. 2.23. Fulk. in hunc locum. 2 If any man sin, (saith the Apostle) we have an advocate with the father, jesus Christ the Just, he is the propitiation for our sins, john 2.2. Ergo, Christ only is our advocate. Rhemist. Christ is our advocate in the highest degree, because by himself, and his own merits, without the assistance of any other, he obtaineth pardon for us. The other, as angels and Saints are as secondary intercessors, that obtain not any thing by their own merits, but only through Christ. Ans. First, he only and properly is an advocate that can plead the justice of his client's cause, which every one that prayeth for us cannot do: for though the angels and Saints departed should pray for us (which we know not by the scriptures) as our brethren upon earth do, yet should they not be mediators and advocates, but petitioners and entreaters for us, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, we gather many strong arguments out of this place, for the sole sufficient advocation of Christ. First, the Son is the best and only sufficient advocate with the father, therefore where we may have free and bold access to the Son, Heb. 4.16. what need have we of the servants help? 2. He is the only advocate that is just and righteous before God: so only is Christ, the angels are imperfect in his sight, job. 4.18. Ergo. Thirdly, he must be our advocate that is also the propitiation for our sins, Ergo, only Christ. Augustine saith, Dicitis, angelos nos colimus: utinam illos coleretis, facile ab illis disceretis, illos non colere: But ye will say, ye worship not images but Angels: I would you did truly worship and reverence them: for you should soon learn of the Angels, not to worship the Angels, in Psal. 96. THE NINTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING SAINTS DEPARTED. THis Controversy hath two parts: first, of those that being departed suffer some punishment after this life. Secondly, of those that are strait received to joy in heaven. The first part hath two questions: first, of the place of darkness, where the faithful remained till the coming of Christ, as the Papists imagine. Secondly, of Purgatory. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF LIMBUS PATRUM, where the patriarchs were imagined to be. The Papists. Haeres. 9 THey have devised and imagined in their foolish conceit four infernal and subterrestrial places: Hell, Purgatory, Limbus infantium, where children remain dying without baptism, and Limbus Patrum, where the Fathers were before Christ's coming. These places they distinguish three ways: first by the situation: Hell is lowest, Purgatory is next, Limbus infantium in the third place, Limbus Patrum uppermost. Secondly, they differ in measure of punishment, some of them have poenam damni, and poenam sensus, a double punishment, both of loss, in that they are excluded heaven, and of pain also, as Hell, and Purgatory: the other two Limbi, are but dungeons of darkness only, where they suffer no other smart or pain, but are only absent from God. Thirdly, they differ in time and continuance, say they, Hell and the dungeon of children shall abide for ever: but Purgatory and the dungeon of the fathers are temporal: the one, that is, Limbus Patrum is many years ago dissolved: and Purgatory also shall cease, say they, at the coming of Christ, Ballarm. de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6. This then is their opinion, that the patriarchs and Prophets before Christ's coming were not in heaven, but were kept in an infernal place of darkness, yet without pain, and were delivered by Christ's descending into hell, Bellarm. de Christi anima. lib. 4. cap. 11. Rhemist. Heb. 9.8. Argum. First, Heb. 11.40. God providing a better thing for us, that they without us should not be perfect: That is, (say the Rhemists) the Fathers of the law could not be admitted to the joys of heaven, till the Apostles and other of the new law, were associate with them, and a way made into heaven by the death and ascension of Christ, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, by this reason the patriarchs could not enter into heaven before the death of the Apostles, if there were no entrance found, unless they were associate with them. Secondly, if the way were not opened before Christ's ascension, than the patriarchs could not ascend before: where were they then all those 40. days? for they were delivered out of Limbus Patrum before Christ's resurrection. Thirdly, there is therefore no such meaning of this place: but it is to be understood of the resurrection, when as all the elect shall be consummate together, and enter body and soul into heaven. Fulk. 2 Zachar. 9.11. I have 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 giveth a clean contrary sense of the place, by the pit without water he understandeth, Humanae miseriae siccam profunditatem & sterilem, ubi non sunt fluenta justitiae, sed iniquitatis lutum: De civitat. dei. lib. 18. cap. 35. The dry and barren dungeon of human misery, where there are no springs of justice, but the puddle and mire of iniquity: That is, the Prophet speaketh of the deliverance of the people from their cruel and unjust bondage and captivity. 3 1. Pet. 3.19. In the which spirit he also went and preached unto the spirits that were in prison, which sometime had been disobedient in the days of Noe. This place proveth evidently (saith Bellarm.) that Christ descended into hell, and delivered the fathers from thence, De Christi anima. lib. 4.13. Ans. The place can have no such meaning: First, by the spirit here the human soul of Christ cannot be understood, but is divine power: for he was not quickened or restored to life by his human soul, but by his divine power his soul was joined again to his body. Augustine also giveth another reason, why he cannot be said to be quickened or made alive in spirit, that is, in his soul: for than he must have died before in soul. But, Mors animae peccatum est, à quo ille immunis fuit: But the death of the soul is sin, from the which Christ was free. 2 The Apostle speaketh only of those which were incredulous and disobedient, not of the faithful, such as the patriarchs were and Prophets. Yea (saith Bellarm.) they might be unbelievers at the first, but after repent before they died. Ans. Then the Apostles comparison could not hold, if any were saved without the Ark: for as then eight persons only were saved, all without the Ark perished: so now without baptism and faith of the Church (for by baptism he understandeth not the washing of water, but the inward grace of the spirit) none can be saved. If then any were saved out of the Ark, there may now also be salvation out of the Church. Augustine also saith, Two modò, qui non crediderunt evangelio illis intelligantur esse similes, qui tunc non crediderunt, cum fabricaretur arca. They which now believe not the Gospel, are like to them which believed not then while the Ark was in making. And they which do now believe and are baptised, are like to those which then were saved in the Ark. Augustine thinketh therefore, that they were incredulous persons, and utterly perished both body and soul: And so is our opinion. 3 The text saith not, he went and delivered, but went and preached: for Augustine calleth it an absurd thing to think, that the Gospel was preached to them that were dead, which in their life time were incredulous: for if the Gospel be preached in Hell (saith he) it would follow that it is not necessary it should be preached here in the world, if men when they are dead, may hear it, and be converted. And again, it would ensue (saith he) that there should be a Church in hell: for where the word is preached, there is a Church. Wherefore he concludeth, that it must needs be understood of Noah his preaching in the spirit and power of Christ: Arcae fabricatio, praedicatio quaedam fuit. The building of the Ark was a kind of preaching, Epistol. 99 So also he expoundeth that 1. Pet. 4.6. The Gospel was preached to the dead: Ex circumstantia loci apparet, eum intelligere eos, qui nunc mortui sunt, sed olim in vita evangelium audiverunt. Commentar▪ in epistol. ad Roman. 4 The text is not, that were in prison, but doth better bear this sense, that are: So the Apostles meaning is this, that they which were incredulous and disobedient in time past, when Noah in the spirit of Christ, or Christ by his spirit in Noah preached to the world, were then destroyed in the flood, & now for their incredulity are punished in the prison of hell. The Protestants. THat the holy patriarchs, Fathers and Prophets died in the same faith before the coming of Christ, which all true Christians do now hold, and were presently received into the joys of heaven, and not kept in any infernal place or dungeon of darkness: thus it is proved. 1 They had all faith, and believed in Christ: yea, the same faith that is now preached: as it is defined by the Apostle, Heb. 11.1. They also by this faith obtained remission of sins, Rom. 4.7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, as it is alleged out of the Psalm: Ergo, they were blessed: but out of the kingdom of God there was no blessedness to be found: therefore they also went to heaven. 2 If the heavens were not opened before Christ's ascension, as the Rhemists affirm: then none went to heaven before Christ ascended. But that is false: Henoch and Elias by their own confession were taken up into Paradise: so was the soul of the thief upon the Crosse. But Paradise is heaven, yea the third and the highest heaven, as S. Paul calleth it, 2. Corinth. 12.4. And so Augustine expoundeth that place, Voluit Deus Apostolo demonstrare vitam, in qua post hanc vitam vivendum est in aeternum. The Lord would show unto the Apostle that life, wherein, after this life, we shall live and remain for ever: De Gene. lib. 12.28. These three therefore went to Paradise, which is no infernal or place of darkness, but a Celestial habitation of joy, light, and felicity: They were not then in Limbo Patrum, in the dungeon of the Fathers. Wherefore we conclude, there was access to heaven before the ascension of Christ. 3 The Fathers and patriarchs, before Christ's coming, were in Abraham's bosom: but that was no infernal place or prison, such as they imagine Limbus Patrum to be. Augustine proveth, that it could not be membrum, or pars inferorum, a member or part of Hell, or any infernal▪ place, as the jesuits hold: First, the text saith, there is magnum chaos, a great gulf, a great distance between, Luk. 16.26. and vers. 23. The rich man saw Abraham a far off: wherefore it is not like, that both those places should be infernal. Secondly, Abraham's bosom, was quietis habitatio, & faelicitatis sinus, a place of rest and bliss: but so is not any infernal place, where there is horror, and darkness. Thirdly, the place where the rich man was, is called Hell, or infernal: there is no such thing said of Lazarus, that he was in any lower place: but above in some high and far distant place: for the rich man is said to lift up his eyes. Augustine then concludeth: Ne ipsos quidem inferos uspiam scripturarum locis in bono appellatos reperire potui. Epistol. 99 I do not find that this word infernal, is taken any where in the scriptures in the good part. And therefore the bosom of Abraham, being a place of rest, saith he, cannot be any infernal place. AN APPENDIX OR APPERTINANCE OF THIS question, concerning the apparition of Samuel. The Papists. THey hold opinion, that it was the very soul of Samuel that appeared at the error 10 witches house at Endor unto Saul: and use it as an argument, to prove that the souls of the patriarchs were not in heaven, but in some infernal place, before Christ's coming, because Samuel ascended out of the earth, Bellarm. De Christ. anim. lib. 411. Argum. 1. Because he that appeared to Saul, is called Samuel in the text. Augustine answereth: that the Images of things, are called by the names of the things themselves: as Genes. 41. Pharaoh said, he saw ears of corn, and fat and lean kine in his dream, when they were but the images of such things: So the devil because he appeared in the shape of Samuel, Samuel himself is said to be seen: Ad Simplicianum lib. 2. quaest. 3. Argum. 2. Ecclesiastic. 46: It is set down as a commendation of Samuel, that he prophesied being dead, Ergo, it was Samuel indeed, Bellarm. De Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6. Augustine answereth, that this book was not received into the Canon of the scriptures: It is not Canonical, De cura pro mortuis. cap. 15. Arg. 3. He telleth Saul things to come, as how the next day he should be overcome, and slain. But the devil knoweth not things to come, Bellar. ibid. Augustine answereth, Facile est & non incongruum: It is an easy matter with God, and not unlikely, that some things should be revealed to evil spirits, for the greater punishment of the wicked: for otherwise we might marvel: Quomodo daemons agnoverint Christum, quem judaei non agnoscebant: How the devils knew Christ, whom the jews did not acknowledge: Ad Simplician. lib. 2. quaest. 3. The Protestants. THat it was not the soul of Samuel which appeared, who was now at rest; but the devil in the likeness of Samuel, who also can transform himself into an Angel of light: Augustine proveth by these four arguments. Argum. 1. Because the Witch or Pythonist used enchantments, unto the which the soul of so holy a prophet was not subject, Daemoniacis incantationibus uti videtur. De mirabilib. scripture. 2. cap. 11. Bellarmine answereth: that Samuel prevented her enchantment, and came up voluntarily. Ans. The text is contrary, vers. 11. for the woman first asketh Saul, whom she should bring up, that is, by her charms and incantations: and he said, bring me up Samuel. Argum. 2. Quomodo Saul etc. How could Saul obtain to hear a Prophet speak from the dead, whom God vouchsafed not to answer by Prophets alive? The text is, that God gave him no answer neither by Prophets, nor by dreams, therefore I have called for thee, vers. 15. Ergo, it was not Samuel, for then God should have given him answer by Prophets. Argum. 3. If it had been Samuel, he would not have told a lie unto Saul, saying, to morrow thou shalt be with me: Magno quip interuallo separari bonos à malis legimus: for we read that the good are separated from the bad by a great distance after this life, as it appeareth in the story of Dives and Lazarus. August. ad Simplician. ibid. Bellarm. He saith as much, as you shall be dead: noting the general condition, not the particular state of the dead. Ans. This phrase in scripture importeth, and implieth also the particular state of those that are departed, as 2. Sam. 12.23. David saith of his child, I shall go to him, he shall not come to me: And Luk. 23.43. Christ saith, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: In both places it signifieth to be in rest and joy, in the same place, where they are, with whom they are said, they shallbe: Ergo, it must be so taken here. Argum. 4. If it had been Samuel: Vtique vir justus non permisisset se adorari, The just man would not have suffered himself to be adored and worshipped: as the devil doth take it at Saules hands, to be worshipped of him. For the text saith, he inclined his face toward the ground, and bowed himself, or worshipped: August. quaest. ex veteri. testam. 27. THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERNING Purgatory. THe question hath three parts: first, whether there be any Purgatory for souls to be purged & cleansed in after this life. Secondly, of other circumstances and matters that do belong thereunto. Thirdly, of prayer for the dead. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THERE BE any Purgatory after this life. The Papists. THere is (they say) a certain infernal place in the earth, called Purgatory, Haeres▪ 11. in the which, as in a prison house, the souls which were not fully purged in this life, are there cleansed and purged by fire, before they can be received into heaven: Bellarm. de Purgator. lib. 1.1. lib. 2.6. Rhemist. Matth. 12. sect. 6. Argum. 1. Zachar. 9.11. Thou hast loosed thy prisoners out of the pit where was no water. Psalm. 66.12. We went through fire and water. These and such like places the jesuite understandeth of Purgatory, Lib. 1. de Purgator. cap. 3. Ans. First, the jesuite brought this place before, to prove that there was Limbus Patrum, and now he maketh it serve for Purgatory: thus they can make the scripture to speak what they list themselves. But Purgatory and Limbus Patrum, are two divers, yea and contrary things: for the Limbus was only for those that lived before Christ: Purgatory began since: the Limbus was void of pain and punishment, so is not Purgatory: wherefore if the Lake or pit in Zacharie signify Purgatory, it maketh nothing for Limbus: and if it serve for Limbus, than they miss of a place for Purgatory. But indeed it signifieth no such thing: but is taken only in that place for the affliction and misery of this life, as we showed out of Augustine. And so doth he also expound such and the like places out of the Psalms: as Psalm. 86.13. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. Quid (saith he) est lacus infimus, nisi profundissima miseria, qua non sit profundior? What else (saith he) is the lowest pit or grave, but the lowest degree of misery, than the which there can be no greater? Argum. 2. Luk. 8.55. Her spirit came again and she arose. Christ raised the ruler's daughter to life. This evidently showeth that there is a third place beside Heaven and Hell: for the souls that are there cannot return again, Rhemist. Ans. Surely a goodly argument, the spirits of Lazarus and of the Maid returned: Ergo, there is a third place: and why may you not think, that their souls were, whereas the souls of other righteous are? And why may not the Lord bring at his pleasure, if it pleaseth him, the souls at rest into their bodies again? Fulk. 8. sect. 5. Argum. 3. Of all other they most insult, and bear themselves bold upon that place of Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 3. which being rightly understood, doth not help them anything at all: vers. 13. The fire shall try every man's work. vers. 15. if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be safe himself, yet as it were through the fire. Bellarm. Rhemist. by fire here understand the flames of Purgatory; by wood, stubble, straw; venial sins, which must be purged by that fire, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 3. sect. 3. Ans. First, by the precious matter here, as of gold, silver, are not the works of charity understood, but the preaching of sound doctrine: by straw, and stubble, and wood, and other combustible matter, the affectation of eloquence, and corrupt teaching of the truth, yet holding the foundation: not venial sins, as the Rhemists affirm: and this Bellarmine also granteth. Secondly, fire is here taken allegorically, as the rest of the words are of gold, silver, stubble: neither can it be taken for their Purgatory fire; because it trieth the works only, not the persons, and all must be tried by this fire, as well those that build gold and silver, as the other: but all shall not pass through Purgatory, by their own confession. They are driven to this shift, to grant, that vers. 13. the fire is taken in one sense, namely, for the sentence and judgement of God, and vers. 15. in another, that is, for the flames of Purgatory. But who seethe not how absurd a thing this is, that in an allegory the same word, and in the same place, should be so diversly taken? Thirdly, The day shall reveal it, that is, saith Bellarmine, the day of the Lord at the coming of Christ: the Rhemists understand the particular day of every man's death; so well they agree together. But it is apparent, that this is the meaning, that the day, that is, the time shall declare it: for God hath appointed a time to examine every man's doctrine by fire: which is nothing else but the judgement of God by the fire of his word, whereby every man, in the day of his calling and conversion, shall know whether he hath preached aright or not: Fulk. The Protestants. THat there is no such place of Purgatory after this life, but that here only is the place of repentance, and to be reconciled unto God: and that the souls departed are presently either received up to heaven, or thrust down to hell: thus it is proved out of the scriptures. Argum. 1. The scripture maketh but two kinds of works, either good or evil, Ecclesiastes 12.14. But two sorts of men, he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. Mark. 16.16. But two places, heaven and hell: Math. 25. Christ hath but two flocks, one of sheep at the right hand, another of goats at the left: and he saith to the one, Come ye blessed: to the other, Go ye cursed. There are but two sorts of men, therefore but two places: Ergo, no Purgatory. Bellarm. There shall be indeed at the coming of Christ but two places, heaven and hell: Purgatory shall have an end. Ans. First, you say yourselves that there shall be two infernal places for ever, Hell for the wicked, and a Limbus for infants that die unbaptized, and heaven that maketh three, and now you say there shall be but two. Secondly, there are but two places now, because there are but two sorts of men, for the believers are already passed from death to life, john 5.24. The unbelievers are already condemned, john 3.18. Thirdly, Augustine consenteth with us, Non est ulli ullus medius locus, ut possit esse nisi cum diabolo, qui non est cum Christo: There is no middle or third place, but he must needs be with the devil, that is not with Christ. De peccator. remiss. & merit. lib. 1. cap. 28. And again, Tertium locum penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scriptures sanctis invenimus: The third place beside heaven and hell, we are utterly ignorant of, nay we find not in scripture that there is any. Arg. 2. S. Paul saith, that every man shall receive the works of his body, according to that which he hath done either good or evil, 2. Cor. 5.10. Therefore there is no place to cleanse and purge the souls of men after this life: for than they should not receive according to the works done in their flesh. Bellarmine saith, that even they whose sins are remitted after death, do receive nothing but that which was done in the flesh, for they deserved in their life time to be helped after death. Ans. First, as for desert, we will show elsewhere, that it hath no place before God neither in this life, nor the life to come: for the scripture saith, Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sin: not who deserveth remission of sins, Rom. 4.6. Secondly, this devised and frivolous distinction, doth not stand with the Apostles meaning: for he speaketh of things actually done in the flesh, not deserved to be done, and of the works of the body, not of the soul, & of things perfectly done, not begun only or in choate: and he useth it as a reason to persuade men, even while they live, to be accepted of God, vers. 9.11. But if there might be any such help after death, there needeth no such haste presently to be converted unto God. Argum. 3. Apocal. 14.13. Blessed are the dead from henceforth that die in the Lord, for they rest from their labours: Ergo, there is no Purgatory: for all the godly departed are at rest. Bellarm. First, it is not meant of all the godly, but only of Martyrs, which die for the name of Christ. Ans. As to live in Christ jesus, is a phrase of scripture, & signifieth to live godly in Christ, 2. Timot. 3.12. so to die in the Lord, signifieth to die in the faith of Christ, 1. Thessal. 4.16. Therefore this place is understood of all the godly. Bellar. 2. This word (amodò) from henceforth, is not to be understood strait after their death, but strait after the day of judgement, them they shallbe blessed. Ans. First, by this reason none that are dead in Christ should be happy before that time. And yet by your own confession, Martyrs are straightway received up to heaven. Secondly, S. john useth this word elsewhere, to signify from this time forward, as john 1.51. Christ saith to Nathanael, From henceforth you shall see heaven open. Rhemist. Thirdly, it may be also understood of the souls of Purgatory, that are without danger of sin and damnation, and are put in unfallible security of their salvation, with unspeakable comfort. Ans. First, so the Saints living are blessed, being as well without fear of damnation, Rom. 8.1. and are assured of their salvation, Rom. 8.16. Secondly, I pray you what rest or comfort can they have, that endure greater pain than any in this life? And how can their consciences be quieted, seeing their souls are so afflicted? for bodies they have none, whatsoever they suffer is in soul: how then can joy and pain, comfort and horror be together in the soul? Fulk. ibid. THE SECOND PART, OF THE CIRCVMSTANces and other matters belonging to Purgatory. The Papists. error 11 1. THey say, it is an article of faith, to believe that there is a Purgatory, and that he, which believeth it not, is sure to go to Hell, Bellarm. lib. 1. de purgatorio. cap. 11. The Protestants. WE hold, that it is not only an article belonging to the faith, but contrary to it: and that though there were a Purgatory, yet it should not be necessary to salvation to believe it. First, because the scripture hath not determined it, which containeth all things necessary to salvation. Secondly, the Greek Church holdeth it not to this day: they confess no Purgatory, though they pray for the dead: it were a hard matter therefore to pronounce them damned. Thirdly, Augustine doubted of it: He saith, that there should be some such place after death, non incredibile est, it is not incredible, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inveniri aut latere fideles potest: whether it be so or not, it may be inquired, and it may either be safely found out, or remain hid and unknown to the faithful: Enchirid. 69. Augustine saith, A faithful man may safely be ignorant of Purgatory. The Papists. error 12 2. THey say, they only go to Purgatory, that die in their venial and light transgressions, or which have their sins remitted, but not satisfied for the punishment, Bellarm. lib. 2. de Purgat. cap. 1. The Protestants. FIrst, we deny that any sins are of their own nature venial, as they affirm; for the wages of all sin, without the mercy of God, is death, Ro. 6.23. Secondly, what equity should there be in this, that venial sins should be punished with the hellish fire of Purgatory, that exceedeth all the afflictions of this life, yea and a longer time than any man liveth upon earth; for the Pope taketh upon him to pardon for thousands of years: and yet mortal and deadly sins (as they call them) may be satisfied for here, where neither the penance can be so grievous, nor so long? Thirdly, the sin once remitted, there remaineth no punishment, Mark. 2.5. Christ saith to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven thee: and vers. 10. That ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee, arise, take up thy bed and walk. The releasing him of the punishment of his body, was a sign that his sins also were forgiven, and the sin being remitted, the punishment also ceaseth. Wherefore who so leaveth the world without sin, is no more guilty of any punishment. The Papists. 3. THe souls in Purgatory do neither sin any more, neither can they merit. error 13 Ecclesiastes 9.5. The dead know nothing at all, vers. 10. there is neither work, knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, Bellarm. cap. 2. The Protestants. WE say, that if there were any such place as Purgatory, the souls there tormented, must needs both increase in charity and righteousness, because the more they are purged the more pure they are, and the less dross is in them: and being in unspeakable torments, they cannot choose but tremble and fear, yea and also be disquieted in their souls, as the Saints were sometime in their afflictions here upon earth: and therefore cannot be without sin: for fear hath painfulness, as the Apostle saith, and he that feareth is not perfect in love, 1. john 4.18. Ergo, a servile or slavish fear is sin. That place alleged doth not only take away meriting or working from the dead, but all knowledge and understanding. And it is spoken in the person of the Epicure and sensual man, that thinketh that the dead know nothing. The Papists. 4. THey affirm, that the souls in Purgatory are certain of their salvation in error 14 the midst of their torments: for every soul departed, strait after death receiveth sentence of life or death, Bellarm. cap. 4. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, that every soul is judged presently after death, we grant: and it maketh strongly against your Purgatory: for the sentence given is either of death or life: and the sentence being given is accordingly executed: so that they which receive sentence of life go presently to heaven, the other to hell. For to what purpose else should the sentence be given, if it be not straightways in force? So S. Paul saith, that they which look to be clothed with their house from heaven, shall not be left naked or unclothed, 2. Cor. 5.2, 3, 4. But if some souls ordained to life eternal, should pause a while in Purgatory, being unclothed of their flesh, they should be left altogether naked, having not yet received their clothing from heaven. Secondly, where there is security of salvation, there is the greatest comfort & joy that can be: how then can the souls in Purgatory be so grievously tormented, which cannot be else where then in their conscience? for as for the whipping, scalding, freezing of souls in Purgatory, they are but old wives fables: the joy then of the soul is in the conscience, so is the sorrow: how then can both these be matched in the soul together, to have unspeakable joy, as also to feel most horrible pain? 5 In these points already set down, our adversaries we see are bold to define certainly of Purgatory: but there are as many points, and somewhat more, which they leave in doubt and uncertain. First, where Purgatory should be: Bellarmine guesseth it is in the bowels of the earth next to hell, cap. 6. so do the Rhemists, Luk. 16. sect. 8. But they do not all agree, neither hath their Church defined it. Secondly, they cannot tell how many years Purgatory endureth, whether an hundred, or two hundred, or thousands of years. Thirdly, they can not tell certainly whether it be material fire which burneth in Purgatory, but they say it is probable. Fourthly, neither can they show how corporal fire should work upon the souls in Purgatory, being spiritual and incorporal, Bellarmine cap. 12. Fiftly, they are uncertain whether the devils or angels be the tormentors in Purgatory, cap. 13. Sixtly, whether the pain of Purgatory be at all time alike, or by little and little slaked toward the end, and whether it do exceed all the pains and sorrows of this life, they yet remain uncertain, and are not able to determine, Bellarm. lib. 2. de purgat. cap. 14. Let us leave them therefore with their uncertainties, and brainsick fancies: for the vain inventions and imaginations of men have no end, but are fitly by the Prophet compared to sparkles, that leap out thick out of the fire, but are soon extinguished: Walk, saith the Prophet, Isay. 50.11. in the light of your fire, and sparks that you have kindled: that is, as the sparks give but a dim light for a man to walk by, he may stumble and grope about still for all that light: even so, no marvel if the Papists do wander up and down in their imaginations, walking by the light and sparkles of their fantastical and mathematical fire of Purgatory. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE PRAYERS OF the living, or any other works of theirs do profit the dead. The Papists. Haeres. 15. THeir opinion is, that the prayers of the living are neither available for the Saints in heaven, for they need them not, not for the damned in hell, for they cannot be helped, but only for the souls tormented in Purgatory, who do find great ease, say they, by the prayers of the living, and therefore we ought to pray for them, Bellar. lib. 2. de purgator. cap. 15.18. Rhemist. annot. 2. Thessal. 2. sect. 19 Argum. 1. Christ while he lived, profited the dead, for he raised to life the ruler's daughter, Math. 9 the widows son, Luk. 7. and Lazarus, which were dead: therefore even so the members of Christ ought one to help another, the living the dead, Bellarm. cap. 15. Ans. First, is not here a strong argument, think you, Christ raised Lazarus and some others from death to life, Ergo, we ought to pray for the dead? for it followeth not, that upon the miraculous works of Christ, we should build the ordinary duties of Christians: Augustine would have told you that Christ is not to be imitated in such works: Non hoc tibi dicit, non eris discipulus meus, nisi ambulaveris supra mare, aut nisi suscitaveris quatriduanum mortuum: He saith not unto thee, Thou shalt not be my disciple, unless thou walk upon the sea, & raise one that hath been dead four days: But, Learn of me: for I am humble and meek. Secondly, if prayer for the dead be unto us, as the raising of the dead was to Christ: then, as all the dead are to be prayed for, so Christ should have raised again all that went then to Purgatory, or else, by your conclusion, he failed in charity, as we do now, if we pray not for the dead, as you bear us in hand. Thirdly, though the Saints departed, and the faithful living are members of the same body, and so are bound in love one to the other, yet it followeth not, that one should pray for the other. They with us, and we with them do wish and long to see the redemption of the sons of God accomplished, revel. 6.10.22.20. But charity bindeth us not one to pray for another, because we know not one the particular needs of another. Nay, to pray for any departed, is against the rule of charity: for love believeth all things, and hopeth all things, 1. Corinthians 13.7. We ought to hope the best of the dead, that they are at rest: but in praying for them, we presuppose they are in misery, and so need our prayers: therefore we hope not the best of them, as charity willeth us. Argum. 2. john 5. vers. 16. The Apostle saith, There is a sin unto death, for the which a man ought not to pray: that is, deadly sin, wherein a man dieth without repentance: but for other sins not unto death, whereof men repent themselves, it is lawful to pray: Ergo, we may pray for those that are departed not in deadly sin: for this place is properly to be understood of praying or not praying for the dead: because so long as a man liveth he may be prayed for, because all sins are pardonable in this life, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, a sin unto death is not only final impenitency, but sin also against the holy Ghost, such as was the sin of judas, and of the Pharisees. Secondly, though we should understand it of final impenitency, yet it is but a so●y argument, some of the dead ought not to be prayed for: Ergo, the rest may, Thirdly, the text cannot be understood of praying for the dead: for the text saith not, If any man see that his brother hath sinned not unto death, but, If he see him sinning: but the dead do neither sin, nor are seen to sin. Fourthly, whereas you say, that all sins are pardonable in this life, our Saviour Christ saith contrary, that the sin against the holy Ghost can never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Plura. apud. Fulk. ibid. The Protestants. TO pray for the dead, is a work neither pleasing before God, because he hath no where commanded it, nor available for them that are departed, because they have their judgement already. While we live, let us one pray for another, but when we are gone, the prayers of the living help us not. Argum. 1. The ground of this popish opinion of prayer for the dead, is their superstitious devise of Purgatory: for none else do they hold it lawful to pray for but for the souls only in Purgatory. But there is no Purgatory, as we have showed before, after this life: our purging is only in this life: Christ hath by himself purged our sins. Hebr. 1.3. Christ his blood is the chief and only purgation of our sins: there are also other inferior and ministerial purge, whereby that only sovereign purging is made beneficial, and applied unto us: as the inward operation and work of the spirit is compared to fire, Math. 3.11. 1. Corinth. 3.13. There is also a purging fire of affliction compared by the Prophet to fullers soap, Malach. 3.3. There also shall be a third purging fire in the day of the Lord, 1. Pet. 3.7. when as the corruption and mortality of our bodies shall be purged away, and then shall our mortality put on immortality, 1. Corinth. 15.53. Other Purgatory after this life we acknowledge none. Seeing then that there are no souls in Purgatory, and for none else it is lawful to pray but for the souls tormented in Purgatory: it followeth, that we are to pray for none at all that are dead. Argum. 2. No prayer is acceptable to God without faith. We must pray without wavering and doubting, james. 1.6. But so can we not pray for the dead: for we cannot tell in what case they are for whom we pray, whether they be in heaven, hell, or purgatory, and therefore we cannot assure ourselves that our prayers are heard, but must needs pray with great doubting and wavering of the mind: Ergo, such prayers are in vain, james 1.7. Argum. 3. Our prayers profit not the dead, because there is no place after this life for repentance or remission of sins: for this should be the end and intendment of our prayer, that they might be released of their sins, and eased of their pain. There is no remission of sins after death, because there is no true repentance: repentance there is none, because there can be no amendment of life, which always followeth repentance: for john Baptist that was a preacher of repentance, bid not only the people to repent, but to bring forth fruits worthy repentance, Math. 3.2.8. So saith the Prophet Ezechiel, If the wicked will return from his sins, and do the thing that is lawful, he shall live and not die, 18.21. There are two parts then of repentance, as Isay saith, Cease to do evil, learn to do well, 1. Isay. 16.17. But there is no place of working out of the body: Ergo, than no repentance. To this Augustine agreeth: Non est apud inferos poenitentia ad salutem proficiens, ecce nunc tempus est salutis, nunc tempus remissionis. In hac vita poenitentiae tantum patet libertas, post mortem nulla correctionis est licentia: De tempor. serm. 66. In hell, or among the dead, there is no repentance unto salvation: behold now is the time of salvation, the time of forgiveness: In this life only have men liberty to repent, after death there is no place for amendment. What is become now (I pray you) of your Purgatory repentance? after this life there is no salvation to be had, because there is no remission of sins: no remission of sins, because there is no repentance: there is no repentance, because there is no amendment. Rhemist. Our Saviour saith, Math. 12.32. that blasphemy against the spirit shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor the world to come: Ergo, some sins may be forgiven in the world to come. Ans. Mark expoundeth Matthew: He saith, It shall never be forgiven, Mark. 3.29. So that not to be forgiven either in this world or the world to come, is nothing else, but never to be forgiven: for if it be not forgiven in this life, it shall never be forgiven. Bellarm. Yea, but Matthew must expound Mark, because he setteth it down more fully, and Mark doth but abridge the Gospel written by S. Matthew, De Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 4. Ans. But why should not Mark rather expound Matthew, seeing he writ after him? and we use to expound the former writers by the later, not contrariwise. AN APPENDIX OR AN APPERTINENCE TO this part, concerning the burials and funerals of the dead. THere are certain points, wherein there is no great variance or dissension between us. First, we confess, that it is meet and convenient, that the bodies of Christians, being departed, should after a seemly and comely manner be brought to the grave: as David commendeth the men of jabesh Gilead, for burying the body of Saul, 2. Sam. 2.5. The brethren also took the body of Stephen & buried it, Act. 8.2. Secondly, it is not to be denied but that lamentation and sorrow may be made for the dead, observing S. Paul's rule, that We mourn not as those that have no hope, that is, excessively, 1. Thess. 4.13. where S. Paul doth not simply forbid Christians to sorrow, but not as the Gentiles. The brethren also made great lamentation for Stephen, Act. 8.2. Thirdly, we do also grant, that according to the divers customs of countries, it is not unlawful to use some comely rites and ceremonies in the burial of the dead; not for religion, but for order's sake: as among the Israelites, the mourners were wont to go about in the streets, Ecclesiast. 12.5. And Christ commended the woman in the Gospel, for anointing of him against his burial, Mark. 14. But beside these points by us confessed, and acknowledged; there are other more weighty matters, as touching the order of funerals, wherein we worthily and justly dissent from our adversaries. error 16 1 They do attribute much to the places where men are buried, as in Churches, and Churchyards, but especially under the Altar, Rhemist. as the souls of the righteous do rest in Christ, who is that altar, under the which the Apostle saw the souls of Martyrs: so for the correspondence to the place in heaven, their bodies are commonly laid under the altar, where the sacrifice of the body of Christ is daily offered, Annot. Apocalyps. 6. vers. 9 Ans. The altar of the Cross was the only place where the body of Christ was sacrificed: neither need it to be often offered in sacrifice, but it sufficed once only to have been done, Heb. 9.25.27. And in the Communion, we acknowledge no sacrifice, but of praise and thanksgiving. Heb. 13.15. It is kept only in remembrance of the death of Christ, 1. Cor. 11.25. And how should it be available for the dead, seeing it profiteth not all the living, but only those that are present, which do eat and drink the holy elements of bread and wine in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ given and shed for them? So saith the scripture, Do this, as oft as you do it, in remembrance of me, 1. Cor. 11.25. The doers therefore, agents, and receivers, have the present benefit, not they which are absent: how then can the dead receive any solace by it? It profiteth then not a whit to be laid in Churches, or Churchyards, or other hallowed places, as they call them: for all places are alike: neither helpeth it the dead to be buried in one place more than another: for God shall command the sea, and all other places to give up their dead, Apocalyps. 20. The very heathen did confess as much: one saith, It skilleth not, humíne, an sublimè putrescam: whether I rot under, Theodor. or above the ground. And another thus writeth, Coelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam: Lucan. Heaven is a covering to him that hath no other coffin. It were a foul shame then for Christians, to exceed the very Gentiles in their superstitious conceits. Augustine saith, Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura preciosa, oberit pio vilis, aut nulla: De cura pro mortuis cap. 3. If sumptuous funerals profit the wicked, then homely or no burials do hurt the godly. Therefore as it helpeth not a wicked man to be buried in one place, more than another, so it doth not hinder or hurt the godly and righteous man. 2 We condemn also their superstitious ceremonies which they use at their error 17 funerals, as the burning of Tapers, which signifieth, say they, that the souls of the dead are alive, Bellarm. de purgator. lib. 2. cap. 19 Ans. First, this superstitious use of setting up candles, was directly forbidden in the Elibertine Council, Canon. 34. Of the like sort also were other superstitious usages, as the going about of the bellman to will the people to pray for their souls, the ringing or jangling of bells to bring their souls to heaven, with queer songs and other melody to commit the bodies to the ground, and commending their souls to the protection of Saints. We deny not, but comely and decent orders, void of superstition, may be used, according to the fashion of the country: as jacobs' body was embalmed after the manner of the Egyptians, Genes. 50.2. At the burial of their Kings, the Israelites used to burn odours, jere. 34.5. The jews manner was to wash the bodies of the dead, to wind it up in a linen cloth, and bury it with spices and odours: So our saviours body was buried after the manner of the jews, john 19.40. We read also that joseph was put into a coffin or chest, Genes. 50.26. Of these and the like customs, Augustine giveth a rule, writing upon those words in the Gospel, john 19.40. As it was the manner of the jews to bury: Non mihi videtur evangelista sic frustra dicere voluisse: ita quip admonuit, in huiusmodi officijs, quae mortuis exhibentur, morem cuiusque gentis esse seruandum: in johann. tract. 120. Me thinketh the Evangelist said not thus without cause: hereby letting us to understand, that in performing such duties of burial to the dead, the manner and custom of every country is to be kept. The jews also had a custom, with some company or frequency of people, to bring their dead to the ground, Eccle. 12.5. And in the while, to use some admonition to the people concerning death and mortality which came in by sin, and of the wrath and mercy of God. Syrus. interp. in Mark. 14.3. Neither do we see, why it is not lawful now among Christians, at funerals and burials, to have some godly sermon and exhortation, to put the people in mind of their end, and to comfort them with the hope of the resurrection, as also to give God thanks, for those his faithful servants, that did glorify him by their life, and by their godly departure. This seemeth also to have been the commendable custom of the Church in ancient time: as Augustine writeth thus, Exposit. in Psal. 103. part. 1. Pauca nos cogit dicere temporis angustia, quod & novit charitas vestra debere vos exequijs fidelis corporis solemn obsequium. The shortness of the time causeth me to be brief, and you know, that we are to perform a solemn duty to the body of our faithful brother. The sermon seemeth to have been made at some funeral. The jews also, the burial being ended, did comfort those that mourned, and eat and drank with them, and gave them the cup of consolation, jerem. 16.7. john 11.31. Both which customs may be kept and retained without any superstition. But other customs and ceremonies, that do savour of impiety, and do any way imply prayer or commendation of the souls of the dead, aught to be left and abolished. 3 Another abuse in popish funerals, is their superstitious and often remembrance of the dead: for they have their weeks mind for the dead the seventh error 18 day, nay their half weeks mind the third day, their months mind the thirtieth day: and beside, their anniversary or years mind. I pray you what need all this? Where do they find, that we should mourn for the dead a month, thirty days together, much less a whole year? joseph mourned but seven days for his father, Genesis 50.10. So did the Gileadites for Saul, 1. Samuel 31.13. The Egyptians in deed mourned threescore and ten days, when joseph mourned but seven: that we may see a manifest difference between the moderate mourning of the faithful, and the excessive lamentation of infidels. But the popish years minds do far exceed the Egyptians stinted mourning: there being five times 70. days in a year. Yet yearly stipends, erected for weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly sermons we mislike not: being ordained for the instruction of the people, without any relation to the souls of the dead, otherwise, then to give God thanks for them, and those good things which the Lord wrought by them. error 19 4 They do greatly err and are deceived, in holding it to be a meritorious work, which is performed in the burial of the dead: alleging to this purpose that place, 2. Sam. 2.5. where David sent messengers to the men of jabesh Gilead, saying, Blessed are ye of the Lord, that you have showed such kindness unto your Lord Saul and have buried him: therefore now the Lord show mercy and truth unto you, Bellarm. cap. 19 Answer. There can be no such conclusion gathered out of these words: The Lord will show mercy, according to his truth and promise, to those that are merciful: Ergo, it is meritorious to be merciful: for here the reward dependeth of God's promise and truth, not upon the worthiness of the work: Indeed David saith, as it followeth in that place, I will recompense this benefit, because you have done this thing. They might deserve kindness at the hands of David, because one good turn requireth another: but before the Lord there is no merit or desert. Secondly, to bury the dead is a work of charity, and therefore commanded, as all other duties of charity are. The things then commanded, we do of duty, we are bound to do them: Ergo, they are not meritorious: So saith our Saviour Christ, Doth the master thank his servant for doing that which he was commanded? I trow not, Luk. 17.9. error 20 5 In their funerals and suffrages for the dead, they do make great difference between the rich and the poor: for they say, it is possible that so many prayers and suffrages may be made at once for the dead, that their souls may at once be delivered out of Purgatory, Et ideo in hoc solo casu melior est conditio divitis, quàm pauperis, quia habet unde suffragia fiant pro ipso. And therefore in this case only the estate of the rich is better than the poor, because he hath wherewithal suffrages should be made: that is, able to give great legacies, and bequests to that end: Albert, mag. de officio miss. tract. 3. Again, they have greater respect unto the Pope departed, than any other: for the first day there must be 200. Masses read for his soul, and for nine days after an 100 Masses every day, Tilemann, de primate pontiff. error 86. Ans. Where do they read in all the scriptures, that the rich in matters of the soul should be preferred before the poor? nay, the scripture saith plainly, that God is no accepter of persons, Act. 10.34. And S. james saith, We ought not to regard a rich man that weareth goodly apparel, having a gold ring, before a poor man in vile apparel: 2. vers. 2. Where also do they learn to pray for none but for those, for whom they are hired to pray? And if prayer be a work of charity, and if by their prayers they can deliver men's souls out of Purgatory, why do they not extend their charity to all in praying for them? What if the rich Glutton, and poor Lazarus were alive now, or these popish Massmongers had lived then: would they have been bought for money to have prayed for the rich man's soul, and let Lazarus alone? It is like they would. But surely all their Masses should neither have profited the one: nor the want of them have hindered the other. Mark, I pray you, what Augustine saith: Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum purpurato illi diviti turba exhibuit famulorum: De cura pro mort. cap. 9 sed multò clariores in conspectu domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum: A goodly funeral did the friends and servants make for the rich man arrayed in scarlet in the sight of the world: but a more blessed burial had the poor man in the sight of God, by the ministery of the angels. Therefore there is no respect of persons to be had among the dead: neither have the rich any greater privilege for the multitude of suffrages, than the poor that wanteth them: for no doubt the rich man's executors spared for no cost; Masses, Trentals, Diriges they had enough, if they were then to be had: yet for all this stir his soul went to Hell, and Lazarus soul was by the angels carried to heaven, that had none of this gear. 6. Lastly, if there were no other thing to be misliked in their Funerals, this were sufficient to condemn them as abominable; that they think, their singing, error 21 chanting, ringing, giving of dole and alms to the poor, and all other their superstitious customs do help and profit the dead: Bellarm. ibid. Augustine giveth two reasons of this duty to be showed in the burying of the dead. First, Corpori humando quicquid impenditur, non est praesidium salutis, sed humanitatis officium. What duty is performed in enterring the body, is an officious work of humanity, not any relief for the health of the soul. Secondly, saith he, Corpori mortuo, sed tamen resurrecturo, impensum huiusmodi officium, est quodammodo eiusdem fidei testimonium: De cura pro mortuis epilog. This Christian duty bestowed in burying the dead bodies, which shall notwithstanding rise again, is a lively testimony in us of the same faith. That is, we do carefully commit the bodies of Christians to the ground, knowing that they are not lost, but shall rise again: but as for the dead themselves, they receive no benefit at all. Curatio funeris, pompae exequiarum, vivorum sunt solatia magis, quàm subsidia mortuorum: This great provision for funerals, this great pomp of burials, De cura pro mortuis cap. 2. they are comforts for the living, not helps to the dead. Impleant ergo homines ista erga suos postremi muneris officia, & sui levamenta moeroris: Let men therefore perform this last duty to their friends, which is also a great lightning of their grief: Ergo, funerals profit not the dead, but comfort the living: yea, it is called the last duty, which is performed at burials: If it be the last, then there is no duty afterward to be done: therefore prayers also are superfluous: for if it were needful to pray for the dead, than the last duty should not be in the burial, another coming afterward. And thus much also concerning the manner and order of funerals. THE SECOND PART OF THIS Controversy, of the Saints departed that are in joy and bliss. THis controversy standeth of these several questions. 1. Of the blessed estate of the Saints in heaven, and of the Canonizing of them upon earth. 2. Of the adoration of Saints: First, whether they be to be adored or not, and whether it be lawful to swear by them. Secondly, of the divers kinds of worship. Thirdly, of the worship of Saints upon earth. 3. Of the invocation of Saints: whether they pray for us and understand our prayers. 4. Of the adoration, translation, keeping of relics, and of the miracles wrought by them. 5. Of Images, and the sign of the Cross, & other matters thereto belonging more particularly handled. 6 Of Churches: the form, use, ornaments, dedication of them, and such like. 7 Of Pilgrimages and Processions. 8 Of holy and festival days, the Lords day, Saints days, and of Lent. 9 Of the Virgin Mary, her conception, vows, assumption, worship, merits. Of these now in order. THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING THE blessed and happy estate of the Saints departed. THis question hath two parts: First, of their blessedness which they have before God in heaven. Secondly, of the publishing or making known their blessedness before men, which they call the canonizing of Saints. THE FIRST PART OF THE BLESSED estate of the Saints before God in heaven. The Papists. BEllarmine taketh great pains, Lib. 1. De Sanctis, in six long chapters together, to prove, that the Saints departed do presently enjoy the sight of God, and do enter into bliss, and that their souls forthwith are received into heaven, and are not kept in any secret by-places till the day of judgement. But all this while he sighteth with his own shadow: for we grant, as much as he proveth, that the righteous are with Christ so soon as they are loosed from their bodies, as Christ said to the thief upon the Cross, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, Luk. 23.42. See also to this purpose, Philipp. 1.23. 2. Corinth. 5.1. Heb. 12.22. All these places do evidently prove, that presently after their departure, the souls of the faithful do enjoy the presence of Christ, and the celestial company of the Angels in heaven. Yet our adversaries stay not here, neither are contented with this, that the Saints are blessed: but proceed further, and give them a full possession of blessedness, making no difference between error 22 them and the Angels in glory, but affirm that they are as highly exalted as the Angels are, Rhemist. annot. Luk. 15. sect. 2. And Bellarmine therefore taketh up Caluine, because he saith, the Saints are yet in hope and expectation of the perfect fruition of glory, Cap. 1. lib. 1. De Sanctis. The Protestants. WE confess, that the Saints in heaven are already a Apocal. 14.13. blessed: yet they look for the full accomplishment and perfection of their glory, when as their bodies shall be glorified in the resurrection: Then it is said, they shall be like the Angels, and yet not in all things: much less are their souls now equal to the Angels in glory, Fulk. ibid. annot. Luk. 15. sect. 2. Argum. 1. The Saints shall be as the Angels, but not before the resurrection, Math. 22.30. Neither can it be proved out of that text, that they shall then be equal to the Angels in all things: for it is not all one to say; they shall be as the Angels, because they shall then need no marriage, as to say they shall be equal to the Angels in all things. Apocalyps. 6.10. The souls under the altar do cry, Lord, how long! Ergo, they are in expectation of greater glory. And reason also giveth as much, that the body and the soul being joined together in the kingdom of God, shall make a fuller weight and measure of joy. Argum. 2. The wicked spirits and damned souls, have not yet their full and perfect torment: Ergo, neither the Saints their perfect joy. The devils are now tormented, and kept in chains of darkness, 2. Pet. 2.4. jud. 6. But their full damnation is reserved for the day of the Lord, Math. 25.41. They are not yet tormented in such measure, as they shall be, and themselves make account for, Math. 8.29. Luk. 8.31. Lastly, if now the Saints are equal to the Angels in joy, their souls only being in heaven: it than followeth, that in the resurrection, when their bodies shall be restored to their souls, their happiness shall far o Rhemist. Luk. 20. sect. 3 affirm that some Saints shall be above the Angels. exceed the Angels: which no where the scripture teacheth us, unless they will thus reason, Christ took not the Angels, but the seed of Abraham, Hebr. 2.16. Ergo, we are better than the Angels. But to this Augustine answereth very well: Some perhaps will say, that we are better than the Angels, because Christ died for us, and not for the Angels. Quale est (saith he) ideo se velle aegrotum laudari, quia vitio suo tam detestabiliter aegrotavit, ut non posset aliter, Tractat. in johan. 110. quam medic● morte sanari. As if a sick man deserved commendation, because by his own fault, he was so dangerously sick, that he could not be healed, but by the death of the Physician. Quid hoc aliud est, quàm de impietate gloriari? Christus enim pro impijs mortuus est. What is this else but for man to boast of his wickedness? Christ died not for angels, but for men, because they were wicked. THE SECOND PART, OF THE Canonizing of Saints. The Papists. error 23 THe Canonizing of Saints, is nothing else but the public determination and sentence of the Church, whereby men that are dead, are judged to be Saints, and worthy of honour and worship, as to be prayed unto, temples and altars to be set up in their names, holy days to be appointed for them, and their relics to be adored. And thus it is lawful, profitable, and expedient for the Church to Canonize Saints, Bellarm. cap. 7. Argum. 1. The patriarchs and Prophets were Canonised for Saints in the old law, Heb. 11. So Act. 7. Stephen & other were Canonised: therefore it is credible, that the Lord would have the same order still continued in his Church, Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First, neither in the old nor the new law, were any set up to be Saints, with intent to be worshipped, called upon, temples to be consecrated in their names: but only the scripture giveth testimony of them, as of holy and faithful men: and so may we also honour the blessed Martyrs, whom the cruel Emperors of Rome, and since them the Popes of Rome have sent through fire and other torments to heaven. Secondly, when they have as good testimony for their Saints, as we have for the holy patriarchs and Prophets, they may be bold to pronounce them to be holy blessed. Thirdly, your argument followeth not, unless you will say, that the Church may do all things now, which the Prophets and Apostles did then: They may as well make scripture, and more Canonical books 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 relics, or prayers to be made unto them, or any such honour to be given them, it shall afterward appear more at large: And therefore they ought not to be Canonised to any such end or purpose. We also grant, that the number of God's Saints and elect is increased daily: and we are sure in general, 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 die in the Lord: But particularly we are not able certainly to determine of any: the matter is to be left wholly unto God, and we in the mean time to hope the best. Argum. 1 If the Church hath authority to Canonize Saints, & determine of the election or salvation of men, then may we as well judge of the condemnation of those that are lost: for if it be known to the Church who are Saints in heaven, they also may as well define who are damned in hell. But this none can do: nay, it were great rashness and want of charity for any so to take upon them. S. Paul saith, Why condemnest thou another man's servant? he standeth or falleth to his own master, Rom. 14.4. No man can judge whether the servant 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 now a Mistress and Lady rather of the Saints, than they Lords or patrons to her, as the Papists hold they are. Argum. 2 judge not (saith S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 4.5.) before the time until the Lord come. The judgement then of men, who are saved, and who are condemned, is reserved for the coming of Christ: Therefore it is great presumption for men to prevent the time, and to take upon them to be judges in God's place. Again, our Saviour Christ saith, that To sit at his right hand or left, in his kingdom, was not his to give (meaning as he was man) but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father, Math. 20.23. How then is it in the power of any sinful man, to give unto any a seat, either at the right hand, or left hand of Christ, in the kingdom of God? Argument. Gualther. Bruti. Fox page. 487. Augustine also consenteth: Non separatio iam cuique tuta est, illius erit separatio, qui non novit errare: Nos in hac vita difficile est, ut nos ipsos noverimus, quantò minùs debemus de quoquam 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 err: We in this life do hardly know ourselves, how much less ought we to judge rashly of others? exposit. in Psalm. 139. Here are two reasons given, why it is not lawful for men to judge of the election or reprobation of men: first their judgement is subject to error, and therefore the matter must be referred to God, who erreth not: Secondly, we can not judge ourselves, much less can we judge of others. Ergo, no man living ought or is able to define either who are Saints in heaven, 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 appertain only 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 Canonised by him: And that herein the Pope is of so infallible a judgement, that he can not err in Canonizing of Saints: because that ordinarily none are Canonised by the Pope for saints, which have not been known to work miracles, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 8.9, 10. The Protestants. FIrst, if saints were to be registered and Canonised as they say: yet it should not belong to the Pope, but to the whole Church. Argum. 1 The Pope hath no authority over the whole Church: no nor yet in any other bishops diocese, no more than they have in his: Let him be content with his own diocese (and it were to be wished, that he could rule that well) the whole world is too large a province for him. 2 The whole Church hath power to excommunicate and deliver up to sathan, 1. Corinth 5. 4. and to cut off the profane and wicked from the Church of God, as heathen and publicans, Math. 18.17: Ergo, to judge who are members of the Church, and saints 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 publicly Canonised by the pope, as Bellarm. confesseth: but the truth is, this custom of Canonizing saints began not till more than 1000 year after Christ, till Alexander the 3. his time, and Gregory the 7. I pray you then, were there no saints before? if there were, who canonised them? Secondly: So much as is to be known of saints and holy men, every Christian is to acknowledge, without any public decree or determination of the Pope or any other: for the word of God giveth rules, whereby we may discern the righteous from the unrighteous: Christ speaking of false prophets, sayeth, By their fruits ye shall know them, Math. 7.16. And again, he faith thus to his Apostles, By this shall men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another, john 13.35. By these rules, it is easy for every Christian to judge who for the present time, are the true disciples of Christ, who otherwise. Thirdly, it is a most impudent and shameless saying, that the Pope can not err in canonizing of Saints: 1 Miracles are no sufficient proof of a saint: for many, that shall be condemned in the day of judgement, have had power to do strange works, Math. 7.22, 23. 2 What better argument can we have of this, then common experience? For the Popes have registered in their Calendars notorious wicked men, and traitors to their Princes, as saints and holy men: Such an one was Thomas Becket, who some hundredth years was worshipped as a saint, by the name of S. Thomas of Canterbury: and yet was a plain traitor to his prince, Fox page 225. And therefore his shrine was justly put down in King Henry the 8. days. Richard Scroop of York was openly in arms against Henry the fourth. Fox. pa. 579 Thomas Earl of Lancaster a rebel against Edward the second, yet both are the pope's canonised saints. Fox p. 1054 Elizabeth Barton was called the holy Maid of Kent, and feigned that she had many revelations: yet was found to be a traitor, & executed: these are the pope's saints. And on the other side, they have condemned the true saints and Martyrs of God, and accursed them to the bottomless pit of Hell: as they dealt most wickedly with john hus that zealous servant of God, upon whose head they set a crown of paper pictured with devils, as if he were given into the power of Satan. But we do judge of these holy men, as the scripture teacheth, which saith, that they are blessed which die in the Lord, Apocal. 14.13. Their good life, holy profession, and constant death and martyrdom declared no less; and that assurance, which God gave them of their election: as it appeared in that worthy Martyr doctor Barnes, who being brought to the stake, sayeth thus unto the people: If saints do pray for us, I trust to pray for you within this half hour: who at the same time uttered his opinion, that not withstanding to pray unto saints was against the word of God, Fox. page. 1199. although it should be granted, that they pray for us. Let them now be ashamed to say still, that the pope cannot err in Canonizing saints, who condemneth good men, and justifieth the wicked, according to the common saying, Many are worshipped for saints in heaven, whose souls do burn in Hell. Thirdly, Augustine thus writeth of this matter: Per has humanorum cordium tenebras, res multùm miranda & dolenda contingit, ut eum nonnunquam quem iniustum putamus (iustiu tamen est) aversemur, & hominem bonum tanquam malum affligamus, quem nescientes amamus. By reason of the darkness and ignorance of men's hearts, a pitiful and strange thing many times falleth out, that we should hate a man, whom we take to be a wicked and ungodly one (and yet he is a righteous man:) and so we punish a good man for a bad, whom we notwithstanding do unwittingly love for his goodness, tract. in johan. 99 Ergo the judgement of men is uncertain, and the best may be deceived in judging of others, who are bad, and who good. THE SECOND QUESTION CONcerning the adoration of Saints. THis question hath three parts, First, whether saints are to be adored: Secondly, of the diverse kinds of adoration: Thirdly, concerning the worship due unto holy men living, as the kissing of feet, and such like. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER SAINTS are to be adored and worshipped. The Papists. THey doubt not to affirm, that there is a kind of Religious worship due unto Saints, not that great Religious worship which is proper error 25 unto God, but a kind somewhat less and inferior to that, yet a religious adoration, which is the mean or midst between that highest worship due unto God, and civil honour which is given unto men. So this is their sentence, that religious worship is due both to God and to the saints: herein only (say they) the difference is, the more religious worship belongeth only to God, the less unto the saints. Bellarm. cap. 12. lib. 1. de Sanctor. beatit. Argum. 1 The Psalmist saith, Adore his footstool, Psal. 99.5. and Heb. 11.21. jacob adored the top of his rod: Ergo, it is lawful to adore creatures. Bellarm. cap. 13. Rhemist. annot. 11. Heb. sect. 9 Answer. In the first place by the footstool is understood the Tabernacle with the Ark: the Prophet saith not, Adore his footstool, but, At or before his footstool: for we deny not, but that we may kneel down, and fall prostrate in adoring of God before such things, but none is to be adored but God. In the same place the Apostle saith, that jacob worshipped toward the end of his staff, that is, leaning upon his staff. The vulgar latin readeth corruptly adoravit fastigium baculi, He worshipped the end of his staff: for then the Greek preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were superfluous. And Augustine expoundeth it aright, saying, that jacob by faith worshipped God upon the end of his staff: quaest. in Gen. 162. Fulk. annot. Heb. 11. sect. 9 Argum. 2. Nabuchadnezzar bowed himself to Daniel, and caused odours to be offered unto him, and worshipped him, who for so doing was not reproved of the Prophet: Ergo, Saints are to be worshipped. Bellar. ibid. Rhemens. annot. Apocal. 19 sect. 5. Ans. 1 The offering of sacrifice, is a worship, by our adversaries own confession, proper to God, though they grant most grossly, that it is lawful to offer incense to the images of saints. Bellarm. cap. 13. The King therefore commanding in this place sacrifice to be offered to Daniel, did attribute unto him the godly worship: and therefore no doubt he was reproved of Daniel, though the text make no mention of it. Bellarmine, by offering of sacrifice, here would understand the bringing of gifts. Ans. This is showed afterward verse. 48. How the King made Daniel a great man, and gave him great gifts: and the offering of presents is but a part of civil honour: but the King here doth yield religious worship to Daniel. 2 It appeareth verse 47. that the King was reproved by Daniel, and forbidden to worship him, and commanded only to worship God, because the King confesseth, that daniel's God is a God of Gods, and therefore only to be worshipped. The Protestants. WE can find in the word of God but two kinds of worship or adoration: a religious worship only due unto God: and a civil honour used amongst men. As for the Angels and saints, we do honour them with love, not with service. We do also reverence the holy men upon earth, as the Prophets and Apostles were in times past, with a civil adoration or worship of love, not with a religious service. There is also a due reverence & estimation of such things as are sanctified to holy uses, as of the Tabernacle, Ark, Altar, Sacrifice in the Law: such now are the Sacraments, which are duly to be reverenced, yet not to be adored, or kneeled unto. So we conclude, that all religious service and worship belongeth only unto God, and it were great idolatry, to give it to any other, Fulke annot. Apocal. 19 sect. 5. Argum. 1. The scripture is plain: Math. 4 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 1. Tim. 1.17. To God only wise, immortal, invisible, be all honour and glory: Ergo, all religious worship is only due unto God. Bellarmine answereth, that these places are to be understood of a certain kind of religious worship, which is only proper to God. Ans. All religious worship is forbidden in these places to be given to any but unto God: for Satan did not tempt Christ, to worship him as God, but only to fall down and worship him: he asked only of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a certain inclination of the body, which Christ denieth, as being only proper to God, calvini. argum. Argum. 2. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and would have worshipped him, he was forbidden by Peter, Act. 10.25. So the Angel would not suffer john to worship him, Apocal. 22. Paul and Barnabas stayed the people that would have offered sacrifice unto them, Act. 14.14. Bellarm. answereth to the first, that Peter of modesty refused the homage of Cornelius. Ans. Peter giveth this reason, why he would not have Cornelius so to do, I also am a man (saith he:) thereby letting him to understand, that such kind of worship ought not to be given to any man: The same reason is rendered Acts. 14. by Paul & Barnabas, why they refused sacrifice: We also (say they) are men. If Peter did of modesty refuse Cornelius' worship, than Paul and Barnabas did for modesty sake only likewise refuse to be sacrificed unto, which I am sure they will not grant. Bellarm. to the second saith, that john did well in worshipping the Angel, and the Angel did well in refusing to be worshipped: for though the Angels of right are to be worshipped, yet they do well to refuse it, for reverence to the humanity and manhood of Christ. Ans. first, let it be noted that Bellarmin shapeth a clean contrary answer to our Rhemist. as appeareth before, count 8. quaest. 3. part. 1. For they say, that john was deceived in the person of the Angel, taking him for Christ, & is forbidden by the Angel to worship him as God: but Bellarmine altogether freeth john from all error, and commendeth his doing: whereas it is certain, that john knew well enough that he was an Angel, but being carried away in the ecstasy of his mind, did for the present time forget himself. And that the Angel did not of modesty refuse to be worshipped, but absolutely and simply, it is made manifest by his answer to john, Worship thou God: He would not have the Apostle to worship him, but God. Bellarmine to the third saith, that the Apostles did well in refusing to be sacrificed unto: because to offer sacrifice is an external act of worship to be performed only to God, cap. 14. Ans. 1. What reason have they to burn incense unto saints and their images, rather than to offer sacrifice? For it appeareth in the law, that the burning of incense was more precious, & a more high point of the Levitical service, than was the offering of sacrifice. 1. The Altar of incense was more curiously made, being overlaid with fine gold, and was called the golden altar, the other for burnt offerings, the brazen Altar, Exod. 40.26. 2. The altar of incense was placed in the Tabernacle near unto the most holy place, the other altar stood at the door without, Exod. 40.26.29. 3. The ministers were diverse: the priests offered sacrifice in their courses, but Aaron only and his successors the high priests burned incense, Exod. 30.7. 4. Upon the brazen altar incense was offered with other sacrifices, Levit. 2. But upon the golden altar no burnt sacrifice or any oblation, but only incense was offered unto God. 5. Of all offerings & oblations, it most lively prefigureth the sacrifice of atonement wrought by Christ upon the cross, who therefore is called by the Apostle, A sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God, Ephe. 5.2. Seeing then that the offering of incense was a more sovereign thing in the Law, than was the oblation of sacrifices: there is small reason for it, that our adversaries should reserve the less, that is, the offering of sacrifices for the Lord, and participate the greater & more worthy service, that is, censing of odours & perfumes unto saints, as Bellarm. doth, cap. 13. Ans. 2. If sacrifice were not then to be offered to saints, much less are prayers to be made now unto them: for to call upon God is a greater thing, than to offer sacrifice, Psal. 50. ver. 8.14. If saints can not challenge the less, that is, to have sacrifices, they have no right to the greater, namely, to be called upon and prayed unto. Lastly, Augustine sayeth, Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum, quia si piè vixerunt, non sic habentur, ut tales quaerant honores, sed illum a nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes: honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. Let us not make it any part of Religion to worship men that are dead: for if they lived well, they are now in that state, that they need not, neither do require any honour at our hands: but they would have us to worship God: by whose illumination or revelation, they may understand, and do rejoice, that we are partakers and fellows in the same faith. They are then to be honoured for imitation, not to be adored for Religion. Haec August. de vera Religion. cap. 55. AN APPENDIX TO THIS FIRST part, concerning vows and oaths made to or by saints. The Papists. FIrst, vows may be made to Saints (say they) properly as unto God, though not altogether in the same manner: Prayer may be made to saints, therefore error 75 vows also. A vow in the Greek tongue is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, votum, prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or al●o. As they differ not in name, so neither in deed are they to be severed. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sanct. cap. Ans. 1. He taketh that for granted, which is chiefly in question: for it is idolatry to pray unto any other but unto God: Call upon me in the day of trouble, Psalm 50.15. It is not lawful to pray unto saints, therefore not to vow. 2. To make vows is a more strict and binding act of religion, than prayer is: for in every vow there is a prayer: we pray God to give us grace to perform the thing vowed: and there is beside a full purpose of the heart with a solemn promise, whereby we bind ourselves to the performing. Again we may make petition & request unto mortal men, but vows we can make none unto them: It would not therefore follow, though saints might be prayed unto, that they are also capable of our vows. Secondly, it is also lawful (they say) to swear by the name of saints, because all is referred to the honour of God; as he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth also by him that dwelleth therein. Rhemist. Matthew 21. sect. 8. Ans. 1. In this place Christ reproveth the pharisees for their swearing▪ and condemneth it by this argument: that howsoever they thought it a small matter to swear by the Temple, yet in effect they did swear by God himself. See then the boldness of these men, that dare justify swearing by creatures by the same reason, that Christ condemneth it. 2. Our Saviour saith nothing but this, that in every oath there is an invocation of the divine power, and therefore whosoever sweareth by a creature, committeth idolatry, in making it his God. The Protestants. 1. THat it is great impiety to make vows unto Saints, it is thus proved, Isay 19.21. In that day the Egyptians shall know the Lord, and shall do sacrifices, and vow vows unto the Lord. But sacrifices are not due unto saints, but only to God: therefore neither vows. Again, the vows of Christians are not to bind themselves to go in pilgrimage, or to offer unto this Saint or that, this Image or that, as Augustine saith, alius pallium, alius oleum, alius ceram, one voweth a cloak, another oil, De tempor. Sermo. 7. a third a wax Candle: God careth not for these vows, saith he, Sed hoc, quod hody redemit, ipsum offer, hoc est, animam tuam. But offer and vow unto God, that which as this day he hath redeemed, that is, thy soul. The vows therefore of obedience and repentance and all Christian duties are the true vows, the vowing of body and soul to the service of God, Rom. 12.1. But this can not be vowed unto any but to him that redeemed us: Ergo, not to any Saint. 2 That we ought only to swear by the name of God, the scripture is plain, Deuteron. 6 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him, and shalt swear by his name; and by no other, Exod. 23.13. But saints are not to be feared nor served, for the Septuagint translate: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt worship God, which kind of worship the Papists themselves dare not attribute to saints: Ergo, neither are we to swear by them. Again, to swear, is to call him to witness by whom we swear, and so to make him our God: for whom we swear by, we confess to be a searcher and knower of our hearts, and a revenger of false swearers. To swear then, is to call God to witness. Quid tu facis, cum iuras? Deum testem adhibes. Augustine. What dost thou, Serm. 10. Sermonun 17. when thou swearest? Thou callest God to witness: But they that swear by saints, call them to witness, and none else are called to witness, but they by whom they swear: Ergo, they make Saints their Gods, seeing God is called upon in every oath. THE SECOND PART OF THE distinction of the two kinds of worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Papists. error 26 THat kind of worship which is proper to God, they say, is fitly expressed by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither is this word used, but for the worship of God: the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken for all kind of service both of God & men: so that the religious worship, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is only to be given to God: the other called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be attributed to Angels and Saints, Bellarmine, Cap. 12. The Protestants. This distinction is but of late invented and coined of our adversaries, somewhat to countenance them out in their idolatrous and superstitious worship of saints. We thus do refel it. Argum. 1. This distinction helpeth them not: for here are only two words, which do betoken two kinds of worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the religious honour: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the civil duty, such as servants perform to their masters. They should have found out three names for their three kinds of worship: they have gained nothing by this distinction, but that civil adoration is due unto Saints, such as is given to men upon earth. As for their feigned word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be called a superservice, when they can find it in scripture, they shall know more of our mind: and yet receiving this term, it signifieth but a more civil service, it betokeneth not a new kind of religious worship. Argum. 2 Neither are the words so used, as they make us believe: for, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they make proper for the service of God, is applied to men, as Leuit. 23. Opus servile non facietis, You shall do no servile work: the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Lodouic. vives also showeth out of profane authors, that sometime the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken for the service of men or maids to their masters: in 10. lib. Aug. de civit. Dei. cap. 1. So contrariwise, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken in scripture for the proper service of God, as Gal. 4.8. Ye did service to them that by nature were no gods: the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Ergo, religious service is only due unto God, not to Angels or saints, for they are not by nature gods. Augustine saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debetur Deo, tanquam Domino: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verò, non nisi Deo, tanquam Deo: quaest. in Exod. 94. Religious service is due unto God as Lord: religious worship is only due unto God, as he is God. THE THIRD PART CONCERNING the kissing of holy men's feet. The Papists. IT is a sign of reverence done both to Christ and other sacred persons, as Prophets, Apostles, Popes, or others representing his person here upon error 27 earth, Rhemist. act. 4. sect. 3. Argum. 1. The Shunamite fell down and embraced Eliseus' feet, 2. King. 4.27: Ergo, the Pope's feet ought to be kissed. Ans. 1 Your pope's must be first as holy men as this Prophet was, who was thus reverenced for his holiness, before they can challenge the like honour. 2 This reverence to the prophet was voluntary in the woman, not looked for or exacted by the prophet, as the pope looketh for it of duty. 3 Hear is no mention made of kissing of feet, but only that she caught him by the feet, which was partly a sign of her joy, that she had met with the prophet, partly by this sudden and disordered gesture, the prophet perceived that she was troubled in mind, for Gehazi would have thrust her away, but he said, Let her alone, for her spirit is troubled within her. 4 This is no warrant for the pope to offer his feet to be kissed of Kings and Emperors, because the woman fell down at the prophets feet: think you, that if the King of Israel had so done, the prophet would have suffered it? Argum. 2. Marry kissed Christ's feet: Ergo, the pope's feet ought to be kissed. Ans. What arrogancy is this, that the pope a mortal and sinful man, should challenge that honour which was done to Christ being God in the flesh, and void of sin? He might also with the like blasphemy challenge to be worshipped: because the women in the Gospel caught Christ by the feet and worshipped him, Mat. 28.9. We may see by this, of what spirit he is, and whether he be not that Antichrist, that shall make himself as God, 2. Thess. 2.4. The Protestants. THe kissing of the feet, was an humble and lowly gesture, which was worthily used toward our Saviour 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 divine, and too lowly an homage to be offered to any mortal man: and holy men in times past refused it, when any carried away with immoderate zeal and admiration of their person, were ready to give it unto them. Argum. 1. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet, the holy Apostle would not suffer him to do it. The pope is of a clean contrary spirit to S. Peter: for he refused it being offered: the Pope holdeth out his toe, and offereth it to be kissed, and urgeth men thereunto. Argum. 2 If such kissing of feet be commendable, how cometh it to pass that the pope only hath holy feet to kiss; and not other Bishops and Clergy men, as well as he? Augustine thus writeth upon those words of the Psalm, Worship his footstool, reading according to the Septuagint▪ saith he, the earth is his foot stool, but we must not worship the earth: Conuer●o me ad Christum, & invenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra: suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro terra est. in Psal. 98. I turn me (saith he) unto Christ, and I find, how the earth may without any impiety be worshipped: for he took earth of earth, flesh of the flesh of the Virgin, the flesh is earth: Out of these words I conclude that the flesh, the body, the humanity ought not in any to be worshipped, but only in Christ, for the near conjunction of the Godhead and human nature together: and therefore consequently no kissing of feet, which is an external act of divine worship, is seemly for any mortal man. THE THIRD QUESTION CONcerning the invocation of Saints. THis question hath three parts. 1. Whether prayers are to be made unto saints. 2. Whether they do pray for us. 3. Whether they understand our prayers. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER prayers are to be made to Saints. The Papists. error 28 THeir assertion is this, Sanctos defunctos piè & utiliter à viventib. invocari: that Saints departed are with great profit and piety called upon, and prayed unto: and that it is not only lawful but godly, so to do, Rhemist. 1. Tim. 2. sect. 4. Bellarmine cap. 19 lib. 1. De sanctor. beatitude. Argum. 1. They say, they do not pray unto saints, as authors of any benefit or grace, but as intercessors only: Neither do they make them immediate intercessors, but only through Christ, concluding all their prayers, per Christum Dominum nostrum. Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is false, that you pray unto them as intercessors only, for you desire them not only to pray for you, but to have mercy on you: for thus they pray, O blessed Lady have mercy upon us, preserve thy servants, let the merits of S. Marry bring us to the kingdom of heaven. Fulk. 1. Timoth. 2. sect. 4. 2. It is also false, that they make them not immediate intercessors, but conclude their prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum: For in that blasphemous prayer, Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro nobis impendit, fac nos christ scandere, quò Thomas ascendit: Here they ask life eternal of Christ by the blood of Thomas of Canterbury. How then is it true which the Rhemists affirm in word, that Christ alone by his merits procureth all grace and mercy toward mankind, ibid. when they hope to obtain their requests by the merits of saints? See Fulk. annot. john 16. sect. 3. where diverse prayers to saints, as to S. Marry, S. Osmond, S. Anne, S. Katherine, are reckoned up, and none of them concludeth, per Christum Dominum nostrum. Argum. 2. Exod. 32.13. Moses' thus prayeth, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and jacob thy servants: Moses here hopeth to have his prayers heard by the merits of these holy men, Bellarm. Ans. Moses rehearseth only the covenant, which the Lord made with these holy men and their seed, as the words following do show, To whom thou swarest by thine own self, and swarest unto them, I will multiply your seed: Moses therefore pleadeth not the merits of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, but urgeth and presseth the promise of God, and covenant made with them. Argum. 3. The saints do pray one for another here upon earth, and do one desire an another's 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 live, is a duty of Charity, and commanded in scripture: but to request the prayers of saints departed, hath no warrant in the word. 2. We do not desire the godly living to pray for us, as our Mediators, or as though by their worthiness we are brought into the favour of God, as you say the saints do: and therefore your argument followeth not, from the prayer of the living to the prayer of the dead. 3. We may one pray for another, and one request the prayers of another, while we live, because we know our mutual necessities: But the saints departed know not what things are done upon earth, neither are every where present to hear our prayers. The Protestants. THat prayer is only to be made unto God, and to no other creature beside, as being an especial part of the worship of God, which we ought not to give to any other: thus it is proved out of the word of God. Argum. 1. Rom. 10.14. How shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? But we must believe only in God, and therefore only pray to God. Rhemist. answer, It is true, no more can we pray unto our lady, nor any saint in heaven, unless we believe they can help us. Ans. The scripture every where teacheth that we must believe in God, and that they are cursed that put any confidence in man, jerem. 17.5. Again, they can have no assurance, to settle their conscience, but out of the scriptures: They have a vain persuasion of the ability of Saints to help them, but they have no ground of any such belief out of scripture. Argum. 2. Heb. 4.16. Let us come with boldness to the throne of grace, Ergo, we have no need of the invocation of saints, seeing we have free and bold access through Christ. Rhemist. By this reason we should not pray one for an other, while we are alive. Ans. we do not put our confidence in the merit and worthiness of other men's prayers, as you do in the intercession of saints. Again, this mutual duty of prayer one for another, is commanded and required of God, as the other is not: Wherefore to run unto saints, and not unto Christ, is to doubt either of his readiness, or ability to help us. 3 john. 16.26. Christ saith, that after he hath by his mediation and intercession brought us into the favour of God, In that day shall you ask the Father in my name, and I say not, that I will pray to the Father for you, for the Father himself loveth you. If then the prayer of Christ to God his Father, shall not then be needful, what use is there of the prayer of other creatures? Fulk. 1. Tim. 2. sect. 4. Augustine saith, Pro quo nullus interpellat, & ipse pro omnib. hic unus, verusque Mediator est. lib. 2. cont. Parmenian. cap. 8. He for whom no man prayeth, but himself entreateth for all men, he is the only true Mediator: Ergo, saints no mediators, and therefore not to be prayed unto. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE Saints departed do pray for us. The Papists. error 29 THat the saints in heaven do not only pray in general, but particularly for us ready in all our needs by their prayer and mediation to assist us: thus they would prove it. Argum. 1. 2. Pet. 1.15. I will endeavour (saith the Apostle) that you may have remembrance of these things after my departure. Peter promiseth to be careful of them, and to pray for them after his departure. Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 18. Ans. This which here the Apostle promiseth, he performeth in writing this Epistle, whereby they might be put in remembrance, when he was gone. And therefore he saith. ver. 13. I think it meet, so long as I am in this Tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance: he acknowledgeth now only to be the time wherein he may do them good, and therefore deferreth it not. There is no syllable, which soundeth that way, that he would pray for them after his dissolution. Argum. 2 Apocal. 5.8. The 24. Elders are said to have golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints: Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ergo, the Saints in heaven do pray for us. Ans. The 24 Elders do represent the Church Militant upon earth, whose conversation is in heaven, and they do continually offer up their prayers. And that the place is so to be understood, it appeareth verse 10. Thou hast made us Kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth: that is, their kingdom is spiritual, in fight against, and overcoming the concupiscence of the flesh and all carnal desires. The Protestants. THat the blessed Saints do sing unto the praise of God in heaven, and do magnify the Lord, and praise him with a new song of thanksgiving, which is a kind of prayer, we deny not, Apocal. 5.9. and that they have a general desire and longing, both for us, for themselves, and all the elect of God, that the day of our refreshing were come, and that all the people of God were joined in one, and their enemies vanquished and destroyed, we learn also out of the scripture, Apocal. 6.9. But that they should offer up our special prayers, & make particular request for us to God, it no where in the scripture is found, but rather the contrary. Argum. 1. The scripture no where testifieth, that the Saints in such manner do pray for us: Ergo, we may safely be ignorant of it: nay it were great presumption, without scripture to believe it. Argum. 2 The Saints departed know not our wants, nor what is done in the earth. The living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing at all, Eccles. 9.5. But of this more shall be said in the next part. See Augustine of this matter. contro. 8. quaest. 2. part. 3. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE Saints understand our prayers, and be always at hand to help us. The Papists. THey affirm 3. things, which they are driven to grant by necessity of Argument, while they stiffly maintain invocation of Saints: For first they grant error 30 that they know our hearts, and our inward repentance, and secret thoughts, for otherwise it would not avail to pray unto them, yet not of themselves, but by the revelation of God. Bellarm. cap. 20. Ans. We deny not, but that God may reveal unto them some things at his pleasure, but hereof it followeth not that they know all our affairs, and hear all our prayers. Again, what a preposterous order is this, and superfluous, God first revealeth unto them our prayers, and then they solicit God in our behalf? I pray you what need this, seeing God knoweth our prayers? First, why is he not as ready of himself to grant our requests, as to stay till he be entreated? Secondly, seeing it were in vain to pray to Saints, if they had not power to help us: they also are urged to confess, that the saints are patrons of men, and have the government of the world committed to them: yea, that they may receive others into the kingdom of heaven. Argum. 1. Apocal. 2.26. To him that overcometh, will I give power over nations, and he shall rule over them with a rod of Iron: Ergo, the saints have the government of men committed unto them. Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 18. Ans. The power which our Saviour here promiseth, is the participation of his kingly inheritance, first, spiritually to overcome the world by faith in this life, and after this life they shall be set in full possession of his royal inheritance. The Rod of Iron, is the word of God, which is also called a two edged sword, whereby they execute vengeance upon the heathen, Psal. 149.7. It is the sword of the spirit, whereby the wicked shall be destroyed. Augustin expoundeth it to be the rod of justice, whereby the good are corrected, and the wicked broken in pieces: Homil. 2. in Apocal. Argum. 2 Luke 16.9. Make you friends of the unrighteous Mammon, that when they need, they may receive you into everlasting habitations: see, the saints may receive their friends and benefactors into their eternal mansions: Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1 Alms bestowed upon the poor do procure their prayers, but not their patronage. 2 The words are thus parabolically to be understood: They shall receive you, that is, shall give testimony of you, and your alms shall be a testimony of your charity, and proceeding from a lively faith, shall everlastingly be rewarded. 3 That it is not meant of the persons, but of the work, it is plain, because alms which issue from a true faith, shall be rewarded at the Lords hand, though bestowed upon an hypocrite. Fulk▪ ibid. Thirdly, They also hold that the saints at their pleasure can be present with their bodies, and be amongst us, and so hear our prayers Bellarm. cap. 20. Argum. 1 Otherwise the saints should be fettered as it were in heaven, if they remain and be kept all in one place. Ans. They are not fettered when they are limited by the Lord to a place: see also what a goodly opinion these fellows have of heaven, making a prison of it. Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 6.9. Argum. 2 They follow the Lamb whither so ever he goeth: Ergo, they may be every where. Ans. That place Apocal. 14. is understood of all the elect, yea of those that do imitate & follow Christ, living upon earth. 2 If the souls are every where, because the lamb is every where, than Christ in his humanity is every where, and so the Papists are become Ubiquitaries. Argum. 3 The devils are of great dexterity, and celerity in passing from one place to another. Ergo, much more the Saints. Ans. 1 The argument followeth not: for devils by property of nature together by the sufferance of God, do wander up and down the world, being thereto appointed of God: but the souls of saints have no such office, as we read in scripture, to be cursory spirits in the world. 2 Though it should be granted, that in a short time they are able to change their places: yet it is unpossible, they should be in so many places to hear the prayers every where, made unto them, unless they could be in diverse places at once. Fulke Apoca. 6. sect. 1. The Protestants. FIrst, it is a great untruth and blasphemy to say, that the saints do know our thoughts, inward repentance, prayers, as the Rhemists affirm. Argum. 1 God only is the knower of the heart, neither doth he communicate this property of the Godhead to any creature: he may reveal what he thinketh good unto them: but for them, when they will themselves, to know our secret prayers and meditations (for this is the question) it is impossible. Argum. 2 Augustine, Out of those words of the Prophet Isay 63.16. Abraham is ignorant of us, and jacob know us not, concludeth thus, Si tanti patriarchae, quid erga populum ex his procreatum ageretur, ignoraverunt, quomodo mortui vivorum rebus atque actibus cognoscendis adiwandisque miscentur, De cum pro mortuis If so great patriarchs were ignorant what became of the people which was borne of their loins, how is it like, that other dead can be present to understand, and be helping to men's affairs? Secondly, We acknowledge no patrons, protectors or captains in heaven, but our Lord God and Saviour Christ. 1 Psalm 73.25. The Prophet David saith, Whom have I in heaven but thee? and jacob calleth only upon the Lord God, to be the guide of his journey. Gen. 28.20. 2 By appointing saints to be patrons of places and countries, at length they brought in a multitude of popish saints, and were not in superstition far behind the Gentiles, who gloried in the number of their gods: For have they not allotted some to countries, as S. George for England: S. Andrew for Scotland S. Denis for France, S. Patrick for Ireland? So likewise diverse saints were called upon for diverse diseases, as S. Rombal for the toothache, S. Petronil for the Ague: One for horse as S. Loye, S. Antony for Pigs, S. Gregory for Scholars, S. George for soldiers: Even thus the heathen invented diverse gods, Neptune for the sea, the Satyrs for the woods, the Nymphs for the water, Ceres for corn, Bacchus for wine, Venus for the Troyans', Pallas for the Grecians, jupiter stator for the Romans. Nay they were yet more ridiculous, they appointed many Gods for one thing: As for Infants Vagitanus, that made them to cry, CuCuninus, that kept them in their Cradle, Adeona, Abeona, to teach them to go: So for the entry of the house, August. li. 4 de civitate dei. ca 8. they had Limentinus the God of the threshold, Cardea the God of the hinges, Forrulus that kept the door: for their corn, they had the Goddess Seia when it was sown, Proserpina when it sprouted, Nodotus when it knotted, Hostilina when it ●ared, Flora when it waxed white, Runcina when it was cut down. The like superstition almost reigneth in popery. But what need we run to so many for these things, when as at the Lords hands we are promised, as king in the name of Christ, to receive all things we need? This great folly of theirs showeth what good cometh by the devised patronage of Saints. Thirdly, it is also another popish fable and dream, that the Saints may be present every where, as it pleaseth themselves, at their tombs and sepulchres, and wheresoever else they are called for. Argum. 1 Acts 3.21. The heavens contain the humanity of Christ; it hath pleased him there to rest himself, until his coming to judgement. Ergo, much more are the saints kept in their resting places. Argum. 2 The Saints are at rest, they do cease from the affairs of this life, Apocal. 14.13. They rest under the Altar in the peace of Christ, Apocal. 6.9. there expecting and waiting the coming of Christ to judgement: Ergo, they do not wander nor stray abroad in the world, neither do intermeddle with human affairs. Augustine saith, Si rebus viventium interessent animae mortuorum, meipsum pia matter nulla nocte desereret, quae terra marique secuta est, ut mecum viveret: de cura pro mortuis. If the souls of the dead were present at the affairs of the living, my devout mother would never a night be from me, who when she lived, followed me by sea and land, to have my company, and to live with me: Ergo the saints departed are not present with us, when they would. THE FOURTH QUESTION CONCERning the relics of Saints. THis question hath 4 parts. 1 Whether the relics of saints are to be worshipped. 2 Of the translation of relics. 3 Of the keeping and preserving of relics. 4. Of the miracles wrought at the tombs and relics of Martyrs. THE FIRST PART CONCERNING the worshipping of Relics. The Papists. THe relics of saints, that is their bodies and bones, and sepulchers, where error 31 they are buried, are to be adored and reverenced, Trident. council. sess. 25. though with less honour somewhat, than the Saints themselves, Bellarm. de reliquijs sanctor. lib. 2. cap. 21. And not only their bodies (say they) are worthy of due reverence, but other monuments of theirs, as S. Peter's chair at Rome, Rom. 16. vers. 16. the prison, wherein S. Paul was kept in Malta, Rhemist. Act. 28.1. the chain that S. Paul was bound with at Rome, Act. 27.4. the stone that hit Saint Stephen upon the elbow now to be seen at Ancona in Italy, Act. 7. sect. 6. Ans. As for S. Peter's chair, and S. Paul's chain, they are neither able to show that Peter sat in such a chair, or that it is the very chain which they show, wherewith Paul was bound. Concerning the prison house at Malta, they show that, which never was: Paul was a prisoner, but not in prison there: that of the stone that smote Stephen upon the elbow is a mere fable: See Fulk upon that place. Argum. 2. josias, when he caused the bones of other dead to be burned, yet he commanded them to let the Prophet's bones alone, Bellarm. cap. 3. The disciples of john came and buried his body: an example of duty and religious devotion to the dead bodies of Saints, Rhemist. Math. 14. sect. 2. Their bodies are the temples of the holy Ghost, and shall be raised again to life: Ergo, they must be adored and worshipped, Trident. Concil. sess. 25. Ans. One answer may serve for all these arguments. We deny not, but that the dead bodies of the faithful are to be laid up with reverence in hope of the resurrection, but it therefore followeth not, that they must be abused to idolatry: john's disciples buried his body, but shrined it not to be worshipped: josias made difference between the bones of the idolatrous priests, and of the true Prophet: the one he burned, and thought them unworthy of honest sepulture, the other he suffered to rest, and enjoy the honour of burial. But of any adoration or worshipping of his bones, we read not. The Protestants. THe bodies of Martyrs are reverently to be brought to the ground, in testimony of our hope of their resurrection, and their memory is to be honoured, as in praising God for their constant martyrdom: so the Psalmist saith, Right precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints, Psalm. 116. As also in following their steps, and propounding unto us their good example: but to adore and worship their bones, to kiss, and kneel down at their sepulchers, is to too gross idolatry, and not to be used amongst Christians. 1 The Lord did of purpose himself bury the body of Moses in a secret place, which was never known to the Israelites: and this reason is generally rendered by most writers, lest the people of Israel should worship his body, and so commit idolatry: Ergo, the adoration of the bodies of Saints displeaseth God: Argum. Caluin. Bellarmine answereth, that though the people of Israel might by that means have fallen into idolatry, yet the people of God may now more safely honour relics, because they are not so prone to idolatry. Ans. Experience of popish idolatry proveth the clean contrary: for the like superstition and worshipping of images was never so common and usual, no not in the most corrupt times of that Church, as now it is in popery. 2 Our Saviour Christ reproveth the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them hypocrites, because they did garnish the sepulchers of the Prophets, whom their forefathers put to death, Math. 23.29. But their doctrine they neglected and regarded not. Such hypocrites are the Papists at this day, who commit a double fault: for they contemn the doctrine of the Apostles, whose memories they would seem to honour: and again, in the superstitious honour and worship, which they yield unto them, they exceed the bonds of Christian piety. 3 Their bodies were not to be worshipped when they were alive, much less now they are dead. What are they now but earth, dust and ashes? according as the Lord said to Adam, Thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return, Genes. 3.19. What is this else, but to worship the earth, even dust and ashes? So Augustine saith: Timeo adorare terram ne damnet me, qui fecit coelum & terram: I am afraid to worship the earth, lest he condemn me, that made both heaven and earth. Only in Christ (saith he) I find, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, how the earth, that is, his body, may be worshipped without any impiety: namely, because of the near conjunction and union of his human nature with the Godhead in one person: for otherwise of itself the body of Christ is God's creature and workmanship, and not capable of divine worship. This then is the privilege that Christ hath, more than all Saints and Martyrs beside, that in him only the humanity is adored. THE SECOND PART OF THE TRANSLAtion of the bodies of Saints. The Papists. IT is an usual thing amongst them to translate, and carry from one place to error 32 another the bones and relics of Saints: as they say john Baptists head was translated from Samaria to Alexandria, and is now at Amiens in France, Rhemist. Math. 14. sect. 1. So the body of S. Luke was removed, they say, from Achaia to Constantinople, and from thence to Padua in Italy, where now it remaineth: Argument. in Luk. Rhemist. The stone also that hit S. Stephen is now at Ancona in Italy, Act. 7. sect. 6. Argum. 1. joseph gave charge concerning his bones when he died, and they were removed from Egypt to the land of Canaan, at the departure of the Israelites, Exod. 13. Heb. 11.22. Ergo, the removing and translation of Saints bodies or relics lawful, Rhemist. Bellarm. cap. 3. Ans. joseph gave commandment concerning his bones, to testify his faith and hope in the promise of God, for the inheritance of the land of Canaan: they were not removed to be adored or worshipped: Ergo, no such translation of relics is hereby proved. Secondly, you can show no such charge, that S. Paul, Peter, or any of the rest, gave concerning the translation of their bodies, as joseph gave unto his posterity. The Protestants. WE deny not, but that the bodies of the dead, before they be interred, may be conveyed unto the place of their burial, as josias was carried being dead by his servants from Megiddo to jerusalem, where a sepulchre was prepared for him, 2. King. 23.30. But either for the dead to be removed to be buried in some one place more than another, for the holiness thereof: or the bones of Saints to be raked out of their graves, and translated, with intent to shrine them, and set them up to be adored: they are superstitious customs, and not used of ancient time among the people of God. Argum. 1. That the place profiteth not the dead, but unto them it is all alike wheresoever they are buried: we have showed afore, 1. part. controver 9 quaest. 2. part. 4. The example of Augustine's mother is notable, and worthy the memory: She had with great care provided her a sepulchre near unto her husband, who died at Thagasta in Africa, and was there buried, and was purposed herself to lie by him: but the Lord so disposed, that she left her life at Hostia in Italy, and being ready to departed, she said thus to her sons: Ponite hoc corpus ubicunque, nihil vos eius cura conturbet: Bury my body where you think good, take no great care for it. And being asked, if it grieved her not to leave her body so far off from her own city, she gave this godly answer: Nihil long est à Deo, neque timendum est, ne ille non agnoscat in fine seculi, unde me resuscitet: August. lib. confess. 9 cap. 11. No place is nearer to God than other, neither am I to fear, lest the Lord should not as well raise me up in this place, as in mine own city: Ergo, in respect of the dead, it skilleth not where they are buried. Argum. 2. The other custom of translating of relics to be worshipped, is far more impious and superstitious: for hereupon it cometh, that the people have been deceived with false relics: yea one and the self same relic is said to be in divers places. As of S. john Baptists head: his face, they say, is at S. jean Angelz: the rest of his head at Malta: his skull at Nemours: his brain at Novium Rastroviense: his jaw bone at Vesalium: a piece of his ear at S. Floride: his forehead and hairs in Spain at S. Saluadores: and yet for all this his whole head is to be seen at Saint Siluesters in Rome, and at Amiens in France: Fulk. Matthew 14.2. Thus they have mangled also the body of Saint Peter: half (they say) is at Saint Peter in Rome, half at Saint Paul's: his head at Saint john Laterane: his neither jaw with his beard at Poycters in France: at Triers many of his bones. Fulk. Rom. 16. sect. 4. See what mockage and cozening here is, and abusing of simple people? How can their whole bodies be in one place, and yet their parts and bones in another? And where do they learn thus to dismember their bodies, and to rake them out of their graves? The honouring of the bodies of Martyrs, is to suffer them quietly to rest in their graves, and not to rot above the ground. josias honoured the Prophet's sepulchre, and would not remove his bones: herein therefore they dishonour the Martyrs, and offer violence to their bodies, thinking falsely that they do great worship unto them. Augustine saith, that he which would now renew the ceremonies of the jews, that are as it were buried: tanquam sopitos cineres eruens, non erit pius deductor aut baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae violator. Epistol. 19 He should be as one raking in the ashes of the dead, and so be rather a violator of Christian burial, than a bringer of the body honestly to the ground. So by Augustine's judgement, eruens sopitos cineres, he that pulleth out dead men's ashes, bones, or relics, is sepulturae violator, a profaner of their burial. THE THIRD PART, OF THE KEEPING and preserving of relics. The Papists. error 33 WE must not think it impossible, that the monuments of Saints, as their garments, relics, bones, should endure a long time, seeing Manna was kept so many hundred years in the pot, which was placed by the Ark, being a thing so apt to putrify, Rhemist. Hebr. 9 sect. 4. Ans. When we have a commandment for the reservation of such things, as the Israelites had, we may believe they will keep so long. And again, the Israelites for all that did not worship the pot of Manna, though it were of such long continuance. The Protestants. THe bodies and bones of men departed neither are to be kept out of their graves, as we have showed, neither can they be preserved without corruption. Argum. 1. Unto all Adam's seed it is said, Dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return: only the body of Christ had this privilege, Psal. 16. Not to see corruption: Ergo, the bodies of men departed, though they were never so holy, being all the seed of Adam, must be turned to dust. Argum. 2. If they would glorify God and speak the truth, they do very well know by experience, that the relics of Saints have no such promise or warrant for their continuance: for most, if not all of their relics, were forged and devised, and no such thing indeed. S. Peter's brain at Genova was found to be a pumice stone: S. Antony's arm was found to be an Hearts pissle: at Toures of late the image of Venus in an Agate was worshipped for the image of the Virgin Mary: the blood of Hales in England was descried to be but the blood of a drake: the three hosts at Caleis were but three white counters soldered into a marble stone. These and many such monuments and relics of Saints the Church of Rome hath great store: no marvel now, if they be of long continuance, for stones and counters may last a great while: and drakes blood, with other such stuff, is not so dainty, but it may be still renewed. Of such cozening tricks Augustine complained in his time, speaking of runagate Monks, he saith: Alij membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant: Alij fimbrias suas, & phylacteria magnificant: Some do boast of relics of Martyrs, which they carry about, & perhaps they are no such relics: some do extol their habit and Monkish weed: De opere Monachorum, cap. 28. See then, I pray you, what devilish idolatry was this, to cause the people to worship counters, drakes blood, Hearts sinews, and other such base creatures, in stead of relics: which, though they were such indeed, ought not to be worshipped. THE FOURTH PART CONCERNING VISIsions and miracles done at the Tombs and relics of Martyrs. The Papists. FIrst, they almost make it an ordinary thing in their Church to work miracles: Bellarmine saith, that it is a sufficient note of the Church, the glory or error 34 power of miracles, De eccles. lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ saith, that they that do believe in him, shall do greater works than he. No marvel then, if the image of our Lady (say they) and the like, work miracles, as Peter's shadow did, and that they seem greater than Christ's: for he promiseth that his Saints shall work greater miracles than himself, Rhemist. annot. john 14. sect. 3. They also call upon us to confirm our doctrine by miracles, because we preach newly and extraordinarily, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 12. sect. 5. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, that place alleged proveth not such a generality and perpetuity of working miracles: for then every one that believeth should do greater works than Christ: for our Saviour speaketh generally, He that believeth. Augustine doth far otherwise, and in a better sense expound this place: He that believeth in me shall do the same works that I do: Quae opera, nisi ut ex impio justus fiat? prius ego facio, deinde & ipse faciet, quia facio, ut ipse faciat. What works, saith he, but that he which believeth of a wicked man shall be made righteous? which work first I do (saith Christ,) than he himself doth it, because I make him to do it. Quod utique in illo, sed non sine illo Christus operatur: Man's conversion is wrought by Christ in man, & not altogether without man, because Christ working in us, doth enable us by his grace to work out our salvation: Philipp. 2.12: yet is it not ourselves that work, but the grace of God in us. Than it followeth, he shall do greater works than these: Prorsus maius hoc esse dixerim, quam est coelum & terra: The redemption and conversion of men, is a greater work than the heavens or the earth: Tract in johann. 72. Augustine therefore doth properly understand this place, not of outward miracles, but of the wonderful conversion of the heart, which we are said to work, because Christ worketh it in us. 2. As we deny not but that there may in these days be miracles wrought: and all such miracles as serve to confirm the doctrine delivered in scriptures, we do not refuse, though we be not bound to believe any man's report of such miracles, but only the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists: so we affirm that there is no such necessity of miracles, as in times past: neither that we are to be pressed to show miracles, seeing we profess the ancient Apostolic faith, which hath been already confirmed by the miraculous works of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles. Wherefore we condemn the fabulous histories and reports of popish Saints, whose lives are fuller of miracles, if we will believe them, than were the lives of Christ and his Apostles. Nay, there is nothing almost done in their service, but by a miracle: Christ's body present in the Mass by a miracle: Devils chased away with holy water: Saints know their thoughts, hear their prayers, are present here and there, their bodies many years kept from corruption, and all by miracles: I conclude this point with Augustine: Aut non sunt vera, quae dicuntur; aut si haereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt, magis cavere debemus: Either they are not true miracles, which they boast of: or if they be, we must beware and take heed of them the more. The Papists. error 35 SEcondly, they do as much maintain their fabulous visions and apparitions, as lying miracles: as how Christ came in a pilgrim's weed to Gregory's table of hospitality, Rhemist. Hebr. 13.2. Peter believed the vision and apparition showed to Cornelius, at his report, before it was written: Ergo, we ought to believe visions not written in scripture, Rhemist, Act. 10. sect. 3. The Protestants. FIrst, that of our Saviour Christ's appearing, is an heretical fable, and impugneth the article of our faith concerning Christ's ascension into heaven, and there remaining till his second coming. Secondly, Peter was not bound to believe Cornelius' vision, till he had been by vision admonished himself: the Apostles which were then endued with the gift of discerning spirits, could better judge of true visions, than any man now can: yet we refuse not to give credit to visions, when they are as credibly reported unto us, as this was to Peter: but no vision, nor miracle, nor angel from heaven, shall draw us away from the doctrine of the scriptures to believe errors. Lastly, we deny not, but that they may have visions: but such as one Vincentius bragged of, that wrote against Augustine concerning the original of the soul: He said, that another Vincentius who had been a captain or chief Donatist, appeared unto him in vision, and bade him write those books: to whom Augustine thus answereth: Ille qui se transfigurat in angelum lucis, in eo tibi est transfiguratus, Lib. 3. cap. 2 de animae origine. quem tu fuisse veluti angelum lucis credidisti. He that can transfigure himself into an angel of light, did transfigure himself into the shape of that man, whom thou esteemedst as an angel of light. Such apparitions they may have, and yet no great cause to boast of them. The Papists. THirdly, they say that the power of working miracles was in the Apostles actually, error 36 and that they properly did give health, and other things by their miraculous gift, though they received the force and virtue of God. And therefore they find fault with us, because we give this note, A miracle done by Christ by the hands of the Apostles: First, Peter saith, That which we have, give we to thee, Act. 3.6. Secondly, we must not think, that they had no more power, then as dead instruments in the workman's hand, Rhemist. in hunc locum. The Protestants. WE both agree, that the power of working miracles was given of God: but herein we differ, they think that this power was inherent in the Apostles, and that having once received this power of God, they could execute it themselves: like as a man having the power of sense and moving by nature, moveth and seethe when he list himself. But we hold against the Pelagians, Gratiam dei ad singulos actus dari, that the grace of God is daily infused, and we have need of it for every act: it is not sufficient once generally to have received it. So then the Apostles were but the instruments of Christ's working: he is better said in them and by them to work miracles, than they in and by him. Neither doth it follow, that they are dead instruments: for the horse (I trow) that draweth in the plough is no dead instrument: yet he hath need for every bout and turning to have a driver and a guide: truly we are as unfit for the Lords yoke by nature, as the horse is for the plough: and therefore have need of the Lords continual direction. The Apostles than gave that they had, not as owners, but as the Lords agents, and instruments of his working. Tractat. in johan. 71. Augustine thus writeth: Maiora, quam ipse fecit, dicit eos facturos, sed in eyes vel per eos se faciente: He saith, they shall do greater works than he: that is, himself working in them or by them: Ergo, Christ wrought miracles by the hands of the Apostles, they were his lively instruments in working. The Papists. error 37 FOurthly, they do greatly triumph and rejoice for the miracles which are wrought by the virtue of holy relics. First, the woman was healed by touching the hem of Christ's garment: Ergo, virtue in holy relics, Rhemist. Secondly, napkins that had touched S. Paul's body wrought miracles, by the virtue given unto them: Ergo, relics may, Act. 19 vers. 12. Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. TO the first: first, the virtue was not in the hem of Christ's garment, but he saith, it proceeded from himself, Luk. 8.46. Secondly, it was her faith that healed her, for many that thronged Christ, touched his garments, but received no benefit: neither was there any virtue in his garments when the soldiers parted them amongst them. Thirdly, if it pleased the Lord to use some external signs, as of oil, clay, spittle, in healing of men, yet have we no warrant, that he will do the like by touching of relics. To the second: first, the napkins brought from Paul had no such virtue in them: for the text is plain, that they were wrought by the hands of Paul. Secondly, not all that touched them were presently healed. Thirdly, they were but as signs and tokens to the diseased, that the Apostle (when it pleased God, might dispense miracles, even when he was absent. Lastly, if they have to this day miracles wrought by the relics & monuments of Saints; I fear me, nay, I dare say, they are no better than the Donatists miracles were, either figmenta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fallacium spirituum: either the gloss and fables of lying men, or the strange workings of deceiving spirits. THE FIFTH QUESTION CONCERNING Images, and of the sign of the Crosse. THe first part concerning Images, is subdivided into certain other articles and points. First, of the difference of Idols and Images. Secondly, whether it be lawful to have Images. Thirdly, if it be lawful to worship them. Fourthly, what manner of worship it should be. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE DIFFErence between Idols and Images. The Papists. THere is great difference (say they) between an Image and an Idol: an Image called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the true similitude of a thing: an Idol, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 error 38 in Greek, translated simulachrum, doth represent that which is not, as were the Idols of Venus, Minerva, women Goddesses, which was a mere devised thing. Images they confess they have, but no Idols, Bellarm. cap. 5. First, S. Paul saith, 1. Corinth. 10. That an Idol is nothing: that is, doth represent a thing that is not: as such were their heathenish Idols, Bellarm. Ans. First, the place is not so understood: for the Apostle saith, That things offered to Idols also are nothing, which were not made to represent any thing: But his meaning is this, that of themselves they are nothing to breed offence, neither were it needful to shun eating of Idol sacrifices, or to abhor an Idol, but that they are abused and turned to the service of devils, as it followeth in the next verse. Therefore an Idol is not said to be nothing, because it representeth a thing imagined, but that of itself, being but wood, or stone, or such like, it were not offensive, if it were not abused to idolatry. Secondly, all the portraitures of the Heathen were not Idols in this sense: for jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Hercules, whose images they had, were men sometime living. Thirdly, you have images representing nothing: as the pictures of Angels, of God the Father, of the holy Ghost, which have no shape nor likeness. Again, you have also your imagined Saints, as o Bellarm. lib. 1. de sanctor. beati. ca 20. S. George, S. Christopher, for there were never any such: and therefore you have Idols as well as the Heathen. The Protestants. THough the name Idol have an odious signification in the English tongue, yet neither the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor the Latin simulachrum, do sound so evil unto the ears: and in many places of the scripture we may in differently read, idol or image: for all worshipping of Images is idolatry. If we will distinguish them, they are thus rather to be severed: An Idol is that image, which is set up with an intent to be worshipped: an Image is a general name as well to unlawful pictures set up for idolatry, as lawful, which have but a civil use. But that the Papists Idols are images, thus we prove it. Argum. 1. The scripture calleth the Gentiles Idols, images, Rom. 1.23. there the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used: Ergo, idol and image are taken for one: they have images set up for religious or rather irreligious uses, Ergo, Idols. Arg. 2. Apocal. 9.20. There is mention made of Idols of gold, silver, brass, which cannot be understood of the Idols of the Gentiles, which were abolished long ago: and that prophecy is to be understood of men living after the opening of the seventh seal, which is toward the end of the world. Wherefore it must needs be understood of the Papists, who are the only known people in the world, that worship images: Ergo, they have Idols. Augustine taketh imago, and simulachrum, which is the Latin for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all one: for the love of the dead (saith he) images were first made, whereof the use of simulachers or Idols do arise. THE SECOND ARTICLE, WHETHER IT BE lawful to have the images of the Trinity, of Christ, or of the Angels. The Papists. error 39 THat Images may have a good civil use, as for decency or comeliness of some work, or for utility of story, it is of neither part denied: but they further affirm, that it is lawful to express the Trinity by pictures; as God like an old man, and with the world in his hand; Christ, as he walked upon the earth; the holy Ghost in the likeness of a Dove; the Angels with wings: and these pictures (they say) are very meet and profitable to be set up in Churches, Rhemist. Act. 17. sect. 5. Arg. 1. To paint the Trinity, or any one of them as they appeared visibly, is no more inconvenient, than it was undecent for them so to appear. Rhem. ibid. Ans. You flatly control the law of God, which simply forbiddeth any similitude to be made of things in heaven or in earth to worship God by. And Deut. 4.15. God expressly declareth, that he would not appear in any visible shape when he gave the law, lest the people should abuse that shape, to make an image of God after it. Lastly, the argument followeth not: for God saw it was convenient sometime by visible signs to appear unto men, and yet seethe it to be inconvenient for pictures to be made to resemble him by: for else he would never have forbidden it. Arg. 2. The angels were pictured in form of Cherubims: Ergo, Spirits may be portraicted. Ans. When you can show an express commandment for your images, as the Israelites had for them, we will yield, that they are lawfully made. Again, how followeth it, God may command images to be made for the use of religion: Ergo, men may? for the law bindeth not the Lord who is the lawmaker. But the law saith, thou shalt not make to thyself, that is, by thine own authority any graven image. The Cherubims also were not made publicly to be seen and gazed upon by the people, but were set in the holy place: so are not your pictures and images which are set up openly in your Churches to entice people to idolatry. The Protestants. TO set forth the Godhead and divine nature by any picture or image, is impossible, and therefore both unlawful and inconvenient: but to bring them into Churches, and to make them for some use of religion, is a high step unto gross superstition. 1. Such images of the Trinity among the Papists, are made to resemble the divinity and Godhead: for to what purpose else should such images be made? Fulk. Act. 17. sect. 5. They picture God the Father like an old man: because in that form he appeared to Daniel: but how know they whether it were God the Father, rather than God the Son, who is as old as God the Father, or then the whole Godhead? They commend also the image of God the Father with the world in his hand: which is a lying image, and maketh simple people to believe, that the world was made only by God the Father, which was the work of the whole Trinity. Some of the Papists themselves, as Abulensis, Durandus, Peresius, do hold, that the image of God ought not to be made, and that it is rather tolerated, then allowed in the Church. As for the images of Christ in the form of a Lamb, and the holy Ghost in shape of a Dove, Bartholomaeus Caranza, a papist, showeth that they were forbidden in the sixth general Synod, Canon. 28. And this Bellarmine denieth not. Concerning the picture of Christ as he was man, the Papists themselves confess, and we deny not, but it may better be made then the image of the Trinity: yet can there not be any true image of Christ, as he was in form of man: for the image doth only express his bodily shape, not as he was God in the form of man: and so such a picture were dangerous to the weak and ignorant: being a lying image, showing Christ only as man, who was both God and man. And again, the image, which is made of his bodily shape, is no more the image of Christ, then of any other man, Fulk. Act. 17. sect. 5. But some will say, if Christ's image cannot conveniently be made, because it expresseth not his Godhead; by the same reason we cannot make a picture of a man, because his soul being invisible cannot be painted. Ans. The reason is not alike: for he that pictureth a man living, setteth forth the life, beauty and motion of the body, by which effects, by a consequent, the soul is resembled, which causeth and worketh these things in the body: but in the bodily shape of Christ, there cannot be made to appear any such notorious signs of his Godhead. 2. Though it be not simply unlawful to express in painting the visible shapes that were showed in vision to the Prophets, if it be only for use and signification of the history, or if there be any other commendable use: yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, or service of God, is abominable idolatry, Fulk. ibid. Epiphanius saw in a Church at Anablatha, Epiphan. epist. ad johann. an image painted in a table, as it had been of Christ or a Saint, he took it down and cut it in pieces: affirming that it was contrary to the scripture for any image of a man to hang in the Church of Christ. The Elibertine Council, Canon 36. decreed, that no pictures should be made in Churches. If no pictures, much less carved images, which are a more strong provocation to idolatry. Augustine rendereth a reason, why it is dangerous to have images in Churches, where there is yea but the least fear of superstition: Quis orat intuens simulachrum, qui non sic afficitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, nec ab eo sibi praestari, quod desideret, putet? Who (saith he) prayeth beholding an image, and is not so affected, as though he were heard of it, and hopeth not to have that performed by it, which he desireth? Psal. 113. THE THIRD ARTICLE, WHETHER THE images of Saints are to be worshipped. The Papists. error 40 THat images are to be reverenced and worshipped, so it be not with the divine honour due unto God, it was concluded in the late Tridentine Chapter, sess. 25. confessed by our Rhemists, Act. 17. sect. 5. maintained by the jesuits, Bellarm. cap. 12. Argum. 1. The brazen serpent was worshipped of the people, seeing it was set up in a high place, and gave health to those that looked upon it: Ergo, images may be worshipped, Bellarm. The people also fell down before the Ark and tabernacle, and worshipped God: Ergo, lawful, praying, to fall down before a Crucifix, Rhemist. annot. Heb. 11.21. Ans. First, it was not the serpent that healed them, but Christ who was thereby prefigured. john 3.14. The serpent was lift up, that the people might round about the better behold it, and it showeth forth also the lifting up of Christ upon the Crosse. It was not set up to be worshipped, neither was it worshipped till the people fell into superstition, and offered incense to it, and therefore because the people abused that monument, Hezekiah broke it down, 2. King. 18. Secondly, it is not all one to fall down before, in, or at the Ark and tabernacle, and to worship God, as to worship the Ark or tabernacle. You do not only fall down before a Crucifix, but worship it: neither is it as lawful to worship before a Crucifix, as it was before the tabernacle: for the one was commanded of God, the other is the superstitious devise of men. Argum. 2. As the image of Nabuchadnezzar was for his honour, so the image of Christ is for his, Rhemist. revel. 13.14. Ans. A good similitude, if Christ himself had not forbidden so to be honoured and worshipped. Argum. 3. Man is honoured because he is the image of God: Ergo, images of Saints to be reverenced, because they are their Images, Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. First, man is a lively image of Gods own making, images of Saints are the works of men. Secondly, no image can so lively represent a Saint, being but a dead thing, as man who hath a living soul is the image of God. Thirdly, we do reverence men with civil honour, not with religious worship, as they do their images. Fourthly, though God's image in man were to be worshipped: yet it would not follow, that Saints images should: for all divine worship belongeth only to God: but the Saints themselves, though they were alive, are not to be worshipped, much less their images. Argum. 4. The chief Iconomachis, that is, enemies or oppugners of Idols, say they, are the jews, Samaritans, mahometans: yea the devil himself loveth no images, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. First, it followeth not, the jews and Turks abhor images, and therefore Christians ought to love them: for the heathen hated many vices, which are also to be abhorred of Christians. Secondly, they were not the first Iconomachis, Image haters: for Moses was an Iconomach, when he caused the golden Calf to be burnt to powder: Hezekiah an Iconomach, that broke down the brazen serpent: josiah an Iconomach, that caused the Idols to be destroyed, 2. King. 23. Nay, God himself was the first Iconomach, that forbiddeth Images and Idols to be made in the moral law. Thirdly, I pray you where did the jesuite learn, that the devil hateth an image? I am sure the scripture speaketh contrary, that what was offered to Idols was sacrificed to devils, 1. Corinth. 10.20. The Protestants. THat Images or Idols are not at all to be reverenced or worshipped, or to be made, or set up in Churches, or in any other place for any religious, or rather irreligious use: thus out of the holy scriptures we make it plain. Argum. 1. The making of any similitude or likeness, to fall down before it and worship it, is flatly forbidden in the second commandment, Exod. 20. Ergo, they are not to be worshipped. So likewise, Deut. 4.15. Isai. 40.18. and in many other places in the old Testament, Worshipping of Images, which is idolatry, manifestly forbidden in the new Testament, Rom. 1.23. 1. Corinth. 10.20. 1. john. 5.21. Ergo, not lawful. Ans. One Catharinus a great Papist, saith, that the commandment in the law against images, was but temporal, and to continue but till the establishing of the new Testament. But Bellarmine utterly misliketh this answer, being most absurd, for the moral law is perpetual, De imaginib. sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. They do give therefore a more deliberate answer: that the scriptures do reprove and condemn the idolatry of the heathen, which worshipped their images as Gods. But so do not they: they make no account of them, as they affirm, for their matter or form, but for that relation they have to the things whose images they are, Rhemist. Philipp. 2. sect. 2. Ans. First, the jews also in their golden Calf had a relation to that God that brought them out of the land of Egypt, Exod. 32.4.5. The like relation had jeroboam in setting up of his Calves, 1. King. 12.28. for they were not so mad as to think that a Calf brought them out of Egypt. And it appeareth yet more plainly: for Exod. 32.5. Aaron saith, To morrow shall be the Lords holy day: the word is jehovah: which name the jews only ascribed unto God: So judg. 17.3. Micah his mother saith, that she had consecrated the shekels of silver to the Lord jehovah, to make a molten Image: wherefore in their Images they had relation to God, and yet were they reproved for their idolatry. The like relation the Gentiles also had in their Idols, as Augustine witnesseth: Non ego illum lapidem colo, etc. adoro, quem video, sed seruio ei quem non video. Quis est ille? Numen quoddam invisibile quod praesidet illi simulachro. in Psal. 96. I do not worship that carved stone or Image: I reverence that I see, but I serve or worship that I see not: that is, a certain divine spirit, which is precedent in that image. Wherefore popish idolatry can no more be excused by this shift of reference or relation, then either the jews or Gentiles, that pretended the same colour. 2 It may be proved by the practice of the popish Church in England, that simply without any such relation or signification they commanded Images to be worshipped. Thomas Man Martyr troubled, because he believed not in the Crucifix. Fox p. 815. artic. 7. Robert Rave of Dorney molested, because he said, that an Image graven with man's hand, is neither God, nor our Lady, but made for a remembrance of Saints: nor we ought to worship any thing, but God and our Lady, and not images of Saints, Fox. p. 850. which are but stocks and stones. Mistress Alice Dolie brought into trouble for saying, We should not worship that thing that hath ears, pag. 984. and eyes, and can neither see, nor hear. These good men and women, we see, were persecuted in those days for denying worship to Images, as they were Images. So then the popish doctrine was (as it appeareth) that Images were simply to be worshipped. Argum. 2. Apocalyps. 9.20. Worshippers of Idols of silver and gold are there condemned: which can be no other but the Papists: for that prophecy is to be fulfilled in the latter times towards the end of the world, after the opening of the seventh seal and blowing of the sixth trumpet. But there is no known nation in the world, nor hath not been many a day, that worship Images, but the popish Synagogue. Argum. 3. Man is the image of God, and yet is not worshipped: how much less ought we to worship carved images, which are but made with men's hands? As Augustine saith, Opera hominum non colenda, meliores sunt artifices: The handy works of men are not to be worshipped, the workmen themselves are better, and yet not worshipped. What foul idolatry is this, to prefer the works of men's hands, before the work and image of God, to despise men, and have in so great regard dead stocks and stones. Argum. 4. Augustine saith: Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores: I know there are many which worship sepulchers and pictures. Of these he warneth men to take heed, Noli consectari turbas imperitorum: Follow not such unlearned and unskilful multitudes. Bellarmine answereth, that Augustine wrote thus when he was a young man, and not fully converted, cap. 16. A silly shift: yet we will vouchsafe an answer, though it be worthy of none. Let us hear what Augustine thought when he was old, and stayed in judgement: jam verò artifex melior est eyes, quem te tamen puderet adorare: melior & tu, in Psal. 113 quamuis ea non feceris, quoniam, quae illa non possunt facis, melior & bestia. The workman is better than the image, who gave fashion and shape unto it, yet thou wouldst be ashamed to worship him: thou thyself art better, for thou canst do many things which that cannot: nay a bruit beast that heareth and seethe is better. By this we may see what Augustine thought of worshipping of Images. THE FOURTH ARTICLE, WHAT MANNER OF worship is to be given to Images. The Papists. BEllarmine, who is the mouth of the rest, setteth down these two positions: First, that Images, though they are not properly to be worshipped with divine error 41 honour, neither is it safe so to teach in the hearing of the people, yet improperly they may have the same worship, which properly belongeth to the Saint whose image it is. Secondly, there is a religious worship properly due unto images, as they are considered in themselves, & non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris, and not only as they represent another thing: Bellarm. de imaginib. sanctor. lib. 2. cap. 21.23. The Protestants. WE have showed before that Images ought not to be worshipped at all, and that all religious worship is due only unto God: wherefore to us this question is superfluous, with what religious worship Images are to be adored: for no religious worship at all is due unto them: yet let us vouchsafe the while, to see the contradictions that are amongst them, and the absurdities that they are driven unto. 1 Our Rhemists confess, that Images are not at all to be worshipped with any divine honour, Act. 17. sect. 5. But it was decreed in the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, and maintained by Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventur, Caietanus, and other papists, that the image of God is to be worshipped with the same worship that is due unto God. And Bellarmine cometh not much short of them, that saith, improprie, improperly Images may have the same worship: as the King's ambassador improperly is honoured as the King. I pray you how far are these men from making their Images Gods? for they say they are the Lords deputies and Vicegerents, as the ambassador is for the King. Again, the Rhemists affirm, that the Images of Christ are not to be honoured or accounted of, but for the respect and relation they have to our Saviour, Annot. Philipp. 2.2. So the Tridentine Council determineth, Sess. 25. Honos, qui eis debetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant: The honour due unto them is to be referred unto those things which they represent. But Bellarmine teacheth clean contrary, that they have not only a respective honour, as representing other things, but properly and in themselves considered are to be worshipped. We may see by this, how handsomely they agree together. 2. Let us see their absurdities. First, they hold that all images are not to be worshipped alike: for they make 3. degrees of religious worship; the highest, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ due unto God; the lowest religious worship, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper to Saints; the middle or mean worship, called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you would say, Superservice, to be given only to the virgin Mary. And as these three, Christ, the Virgin, the Saints do differ, say they, in honour, so their Images accordingly must be distinguished in their worship. Thus it cometh about, that a Rood of wood representing Christ, is more to be honoured, than an Image of our Lady of silver; and Her image, if it be but of stone, is more to be reverenced then a Saints image of gold: and thus the excellency of nature, which is given these things by creation, is inverted. Again, whereas beside these three devised worships, which are properly due (as they say) to the Saints, not to their images, the images also have their proper worships: they make three other inferior kinds of worship, which do exceed in degree, as the other superior kinds do: so as Christ hath his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worship, his image must have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his under worship, (for we must coin new names for strange devices) their Lady Mary hath her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superservice: her image must have an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and under-over-seruice: as the Saints have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, service, so their images must have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an under-service. And thus have we six kinds of religious worship: as Bellarmine hath coined them, cap. 25. and yet before the jesuite told us but of two kinds of religious worship, and the third a civil: three in all, Lib. 1. de Sanct. beatit. cap. 12. But the scripture acknowledgeth one only kind of religious worship, and that due only unto the Lord: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Math. 4.10. And the Angel forbade john to fall down before him, giving a rule for all religious worship: Worship God, saith he, Apocal. 22.9. Now, if our adversaries deal plainly with us, and tell us in good sooth, that they would not have images to be adored with divine worship: I ask them, whether to offer incense be not a part of divine worship? They cannot deny it: for Hezekiah therefore broke down the brazen Serpent, because the people burned incense to it, 2. King. 18.4. Seeing then the jesuite alloweth censing & burning of odours before Images, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sanctor. beatitude. cap. 13. they give unto them divine honour. The jesuits simple shift, that offering of incense was a sacrifice then, an so part of divine worship, but it is none now, is not worth the answer. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 17. THE SECOND PART OF THIS question concerning the sign of the Crosse. THis part also is divided into certain points or articles. 1. Of the honour due to the true Cross of Christ, whereon he suffered. 2. Of the Image of the Crosse. 3 Of the Sign of the Cross in the forehead, or made otherwise with the hand. 4 Of the power and efficacy of the Crosse. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE TRUE Cross whereon our Saviour suffered. The Papists. THe wood of the Cross, both the whole and every piece thereof (say they) is worthy of great worship and reverence: and therefore it hath been worthily error 42 visited in pilgrimages, honoured with festival days, reserved with all devotion in times past, Rhemist. annot. john 19 sect. 2. Argum. 1. It is highly sanctified, by the touching, bearing and oblation of the sacred body of Christ, the Altar of that supreme sacrifice, & instrument of our redemption. Ergo, to be worshipped, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. lib. 2. de imagine. cap. 27. Ans. If therefore it was holy because it touched the body of Christ, & was an instrument of his death: by the same reason, the nails that pierced him, the spear that gored his side, the torments that crucified, judas that betrayed and kissed him: All these should also be honoured and worshipped, that handled and touched him, and were instruments, occasions, and procurers of his death. Argum. 2 The Cross of Christ was found out, say they, in Constantine's time the great, by a strange miracle: for there were three crosses digged up, which had been a long time buried in the earth: the two crosses upon the which the 2. thieves suffered, the 3. whereon our Saviour hung: They brought them all three to a woman that then lay very sick, they laid the two first to her, and she remained as she was; then they applied the third, and she was presently made whole. Bellarm. ex Ruffino: Ergo, the Cross is holy and to be worshipped. Ans. The invention of the Cross by Helena Constantine's mother, seemeth to be a forged and fabulous story. 1. Eusebius that writeth of the life of Constantine, and the Acts of Helena and registereth diverse matters of less importance, yea he showeth how the Mount Caluarie, where the heathen had built Idolatrous Temples, was purged, and in that place (say they) the Cross▪ was found, yet he maketh no mention at all of the invention of the Cross: which it is very like he would not have omitted, if there had been any such thing. 2. The most ancient author that writeth of this matter, is Ambrose, deobitu Theodosii, which oration Erasmus thinketh to be forged in Ambroses' name. 3. There is great disagreement amongst writers about this story. Ambrose sayeth, the Cross was known by the title that Pilate fastened to it. Sozomenus and Nicephorus say, the letters were worn out, and it could not be discerned by the title. Paulinus saith, the way to discern it, was revealed to Helena: Ruffinus ascribeth the devise to Macarius' Bishop of jerusalem: Paulinus saith, it was known by raising up a dead man to life: Ruffinus, by restoring a sick woman to health, Fulk annot. john 19 sect. 2. Thus we see of what small credit this story is. And be it granted, that there might be some such thing found: yet they must bring better proof for that miraculous invention, before we will believe it. The Protestants. WE are not taught any where in the word of God, to give any religious worship to any creature, nor to adore stocks and stones, no nor the very Cross itself, whereon Christ was crucified, if it were now to be seen or had. Argum. 1. If there had belonged unto the Church any religious care of it, the Apostles would (no doubt) have procured the safe keeping thereof, and not have suffered the Church to want it 300. years: and it had been an easier suit for joseph and Nicodemus to beg the Cross, than the body of jesus. Argum. 2. If the Cross were to be adored, we are uncertain which it is, and where to be had; and so might worship a common piece of wood, for the wood of the Cross: for there is no doubt but this relic is forged and counterfeited as the rest be. Euegrius saith, the Cross was at Apamea: Ruffinus, that it was left at jerusalem, and that Helena sent a piece of it to Constantinople: and in many other places there are pieces of the Cross to be seen, which if they were all laid together (as Erasmus saith) would fill a ship: for why? Paulinus witnesseth, that the Cross remaineth whole at jerusalem, as though it had been never touched, though innumerable pieces be daily cut off from it, at the request of men. But this fable that goeth under the name of Paulinus, the Papists themselves are ashamed of. But if the true and right Cross were to be had; why might it not be served, if people began to abuse it to Idolatry, as Hezekiah served the brazen serpent? he broke it in pieces, when the people began to make an Idol of it. Augustine saith, Christus ambulavit in mari, ut ostenderet in mari esse viam: sed tù quoniam i● mari ambulare non potes, navi portare, ligno portare, crede in crucifixum, & poteris pervenire: Nemo potest transire mare huius seculi nisi Cruse Christi portatus. Christ walked in the Sea, to show us that our way must be through the Sea: But thou, because thou canst not walk in the sea, must sail in a ship, and be carried in a piece of wood: Believe in him that was crucified for thee: No man can pass the sea of this world, but being borne up with the cross of Christ. Hear Augustine maketh no reckoning of the wood of the Cross, which was easier to be had in his days, than ever since, but ascribeth all to faith and belief in Christ crucified. THE SECOND ARTICLE OF THE Image of the Cross or Crucifix. The Papists. THe Image of Christ upon the cross, whether painted, carved, or graven, we error 43 see is had in great honour amongst our adversaries: They kneel down before their crucifix, wear it in their bosoms next to their heart, carry it in their journeys, set it up to be adored in their churches. Argum. 1. As adoration was done unto God in old time, at and before the Ark and Tabernacle, so it may be done now, at, or before a crucifix, relic, image, Rhemist. annot. Heb. 11. sect. 9 Ans. 1. It is not all one to worship God at or before a thing, as to worship and adore the thing: the Israelits worshipped God, in, at or before the Tabernacle, yet did they not worship the Tabernacle, as you do the crucifix. 2. They might worship God before the Ark, because they were commanded so to do: but it is not lawful to fall down before a crucifix, because all such images are flatly in the 2. commandment forbidden. Argum. 2. The sign of the cross appeared to Constantine in the air, he caused the cross to be carried before him as an ensign in battle: When the jews had leave of julian to build the Temple, there were Crosses seen every where in their garments, and many such apparitions have there been of the Cross: Ergo, it is to be honoured and worshipped, Bellarmine cap. 28. Ans. 1. What if Constantine caused the Cross to be carried before him, stamped it in his coin, set up his picture with the Cross in his hand? all this we grant was done, & may be done again: It was but a civil, no religious use of the Cross: He worshipped it not, unless you will say, he set up his own image with the Cross in his hand to be worshipped. 2. As for the apparitions of the Cross (though we think many of them to be forged) yet we deny not, but that the Lord hath and may yet show, what signs and tokens it pleaseth him in the Heaven, and the earth: yet it followeth not, that the sign of the cross should therefore be worshipped, because it was showed to Constantine, no more than other signs and strange sights that many times appear in the air. For the other apparition of Crosses in the jews garments, we will require it with another, and yet you shall gain nothing by it. Anno. 1505. under the reign of the Emperor Maximilian, there appeared diverse tokens of bloody crosses, the nails, the sponge, the spear, and other signs of Christ's passion, in the garments of men and women, yea in their rocks, while they were a spinning, reported by Francis Mirandula, carrion, Functius, Melancton, Flaccius: But the Popish Chronologers make no mention of it, as Christianus Masseus, & others of that profession. As the Crosses in the jews garments, that went about to establish their ceremonies again, did show, that do what they could, the gospel, that is, the preaching of his Cross should take place, as it did: so these signs in Germany did portend, that the gospel in Germany should be preached, though the Papists strived never so much against it. But it is a far fetched conclusion, to infer hereupon, that the sign or Image of the Cross is to be adored. The Protestants. THe Image of the Cross of Christ, is neither to be painted, carved, graven, for any religious use, nor to be adored or worshipped: but men so doing do fall into the grievous and high offence and sin of idolatry. Argu. 1. The Scripture never calleth the Cross, whereon Christ suffered, the holy Cross, as the papists do, but rather cursed: for S. Paul proveth that Christ became accursed for us, because he died upon the Cross, according to the scripture, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. How then is it now honoured, which was then accursed? And if all crosses are worthy honour, because of Christ his Cross, then why not all nails, and spears? for with them he was pierced; all thorns also, because of his crown of thorns: yea, & all horse-mangers too, because he was laid in a Crib? Argum. 2 They are uncertain of what fashion the Cross of Christ was, whetherlike the Greek letter. Υ. or this letter, x. or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. T. or of this fashion. † or of this, ✚. which is the usual form of their Crosses: how then dare they worship that which they know not, and are uncertain of? 3. All those reasons which we brought before against the worshipping of images: part. ●. huius quaest. articul. 3. may be urged against the adoration of Crucifixes. Augustine thus writeth, Hanc intuentes salutiferam crucem, omne calumniantium superborum virus expellimus, In Psal. 118 Cont. 26. By beholding this helpful, or healthful Cross, we are able to avoid the poison of all proud venomous Cavillers. He speaketh not of any Crucifix that they had in sight, but of the fruitful meditation of the passion of Christ: as he sayeth a little before, Dum vigilantissima & diligentissima pietate Christus crucifixus attenditur, When with diligent and watchful and godly attention we consider Christ crucified. Lo, this was Augustine's Crucifix, to meditate upon the death of Christ. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE SIGN of the Cross in the forehead, or made over any thing with the hand. The Papists. THey say, it is an holy and venerable sign, and meet to be used, to cross the error 44 forehead, and other parts, to bless themselves and their meats with crossing and such like. Rhemist. Argum. 1. Jacob crossed his hands when he blessed his sons: it is like our Saviour did lift up his hands in the form of the cross, when he blessed. It is a convenient memorial of the death of Christ: and therefore to be used. Rhemist. annot. Luke 24. sect. 5. Ans. 1. jacob laid his hands after that form, because of the present occasion: for the younger son that should be the greater, was placed at his left hand, and the elder at the right. 2. Seeing the scripture expresseth not in what manner Christ lifted up his hands, it is great presumption for you to say, it was done in the similitude of the Crosse. 3. How can it be a convenient memorial of Christ's death, being neither ordained of Christ, nor taught by his Apostles so to be? Argum. 2. Apocal. 7.3. Hurt not the earth, till we have sealed the servants of God in their forehead: This is the sign of the Cross, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 29. Ans. It is the sign proper to Gods elect, and therefore not the sign of the Cross, which many reprobates have received, Fulk ibid. The Protestants. THough we find that the sign of the Cross hath been of ancient time used in Baptism, and is now in some reformed churches without popish superstition: yet this ridiculous & superstitious abuse of the sign of the Cross, which is common and usual among the Papists, to cross themselves, their foreheads, their eyes, mouth, lips, to cross themselves going forth, and returning home, thinking thereby to be sufficiently shended and preserved from evil, we do utterly condemn, and have worthily abolished. Argum. 1. This custom of crossing hath no warrant from scripture, neither was practised by the Apostles: Valentinus the Heretic was the first that made any great account of it, Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 1. therefore not to be used amongst Christians. Argum. 2. Math. 23.5. Christ reproveth the pharisees for their phylacteries, that is certain writings of the law in parchment, which they bond to their foreheads, and for their broad fringes, which were notwithstanding commanded by the law. If our Saviour reproved them for abusing the things rightly instituted at the first: much more worthy of blame is the superstition of Christians that hath no ground nor warrant at all. In johann. tract. 43. Augustine saith, Christus elegit, ut in cruse penderet, ut ipsam crucem in cordibus fidelium figeret: Christ made choice of that kind of death to hang upon the Cross, that his Cross might be fixed in faithful men's hearts: he saith not in frontibus, in the forehead, though in some editions that word be foisted into the text, but in cordibus, in their hearts. THE FOURTH ARTICLE OF THE POWER and efficacy of the Crosse. The Papists. error 45 THe sign of the Cross (say they) hath too notable and powerful effects: one is to drive away devils and evil spirits, to heal and cure diseases: the other is to sanctify and bless creatures, as our meats and drinks, which is done by the sign of the Cross, Rhemist. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 12.13. Bellarm. cap. 30. Argum. 1. That the sign of the Cross, even ex opere operato, as Bellarmine saith, by the very act, and making of the sign, yea by a jew, Infidel or Pagan, hath power to drive away the devil, they would thus prove it: David by his Harp drove away the evil spirit from Saul: the Angel did the like with the fishes liver, in the story of Toby: Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, we must have better scriptures then Apocryphal stories to build our faith upon: The good angels of God have power from God to drive away evil spirits, though they use no external signs: yet it followeth not, that every man may do that which is granted to the Angels, though we should admit the story. Secondly, David not so much by the sound of his Harp refreshed Saul, as by his godly songs and music chased away the spirit: neither did the evil spirit departed from him, but he for the while found some ease: his fantastical and melancholy fits which Satan wrought upon, being by his pleasant harmony somewhat allayed. Thirdly, all this being granted, yet have they not proved by these examples, that Pagans and Infidels, by the sign of the Cross, may chase away evil spirits. 2. That things are hallowed and blessed by the sign of the Cross, they also prove it, because the Cross being an holy sign in itself, doth communicate holiness unto the things signed with the Cross: Bellarm. cap. 130. Ans. First, we deny the sign of the Cross, as they use it to be an holy but rather a superstitious and deceivable ceremony. Secondly, though it were holy, yet being abused, it cannot transfer any holiness to other things▪ for in the law the sacrifices of the wicked, though they lay upon the Altar, were not thereby sanctified, but were an abomination, being not offered in a right faith: Nay, there is no outward ceremony so holy, as that it can impart the holiness to another thing: as it is showed, Hagg. 2.13. Though a man did bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, yet was it not thereby holy. The Protestants. FIrst, it is a deceitful toy that they bear the people in hand: the devil at the sign of the Cross will fly away: For the weapons of our warfare (saith S. Paul) are not carnal, 2. Corinth. 10.4. but the sign of the Cross is an external and carnal, no spiritual weapon, and therefore prevaileth not against spiritual powers. Act. 19 The devil would not give place when jesus and Paul were named, much less at the sign of the Crosse. Augustine saith: Signum Christi expellit exterminatorem▪ si cor nostrum recipiat salvatorem: The sign of Christ doth expel the destroyer, when our heart receiveth our Saviour: Tractat. in johann. 50. So it is not the sign in the forehead, but the faith of the heart, that maketh Satan afraid: if sometime he avoid when men sign themselves, he is disposed to play with them, that he may deceive them more strongly. Secondly, we know no such means to sanctify creatures by: They are blessed and sanctified for our uses (as S. Paul saith) by the word and prayer, 1. Tim. 4. Prayer therefore without warrant of the word is but presumption. They therefore having no word for their superstitious cross, invocations, incantations, popish blessings, do deceive themselves and others, in thinking that the creatures in such order are sanctified unto them. AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of jesus. The Papists. THe name of jesus (they say) ought to be worshipped by capping and kneeling error 46 thereunto, by wearing it in their caps, and setting it up in solemn places: alleging for their purpose that of S. Paul, That at the name of jesus all things shall bow, Philipp. 2.10. Yea, they say, that Protestants by abolishing the name and Image of Christ, do make a way for Antichrist. Rhemist. annot. Phi●ipp. ●. sect. ●. Apocal. 13.17. The Protestants. 1. THe bowing at the name of jesus, as it is used in popery, to bend the knee at the sound thereof, is not commanded in this place: which showeth especially the subjection of all creatures, of Turks, jews, infidels, yea of the devils themselves to the power and judgement of Christ. Secondly, Protestants have only taken away the superstitious abuse of the name of jesus. Thirdly, the kneeling at the name of jesus is superstitiously abused in popery: for the people stoop only at the sound, not understanding what is read, and so make an idol of the Letters and syllables, adoring and worshipping the very name when they hear it or see it: And again in sitting and not veiling at the name of Christ, Immanuel, God the father, the son, and the holy Ghost, and bowing only at the name of jesus: Fulk. ibid. Fourthly, due reverence may be used to our Saviour without any such ceremony of capping or kneeling, Fulk. Neither do we bind any of necessity to use this reverence to the name of jesus, as the Papists do, which think that Christ cannot otherwise be honoured: neither do we judge and condemn those that do use it, being free from superstition, and grounded in knowledge, and careful not to give offence: for superstitious and offensive ignorance is not in any case to be defended. Fiftly, this outward reverence to the name of jesus was first taken up amongst Christians, because of all other names it was most derided and scorned of the Pagans and jews: and therefore they did the more honour it. But now there is greater danger of popish superstition in abusing holy things, then of profane paganism in utterly contemning them: and therefore there is not such necessary and just occasion of using this external gesture now, as was in former times: It was not used of necessity then, much less now. THE sixth QUESTION CONCERNING Temples and Churches. THis question hath diverse parts. First, of the form and situation of Churches. Secondly, of the end and use of Churches. Thirdly, of their ornaments, Fourthly, of the dedication of Churches. Fiftly of things hallowed and consecrated for Churches. THE FIRST PART OF THE SITVation of Churches. The Papists. THe Churches and Temples of Christians (say they) are most conveniently and have been of ancient time builded toward the East. Bellarmine libro tertio, capite tertio, de sanctis. Argu. 1. Paradise was built in the East, Genes. 2.8. and therefore we ought to pray that way, for desire we have to our Country. Ans. 1. Paradise was then Eastward unto Moses and the Israelites being in the Wilderness, when he wrote this story: but it cannot be East to all Christian nations: for Paradise being planted in Eden which was part of Mesopotamia, must needs be West to the Persians, South to the Scythians and Tartarians, North to the Aethiopians: wherefore this reason is not general for all Churches in Christian nations. Secondly, it skilleth not where that earthly Paradise is situate: our heavenly Paradise is in heaven, which is every where open to all true believers. Argu. 2. We look for Christ to come in the East to judgement, therefore we pray toward the East: As the lightning shineth from the East to the West, so shall the coming of the Son of man be. Math. 27.24. Therefore he shall appear toward the East. Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. By that similitude of the lightning, the suddenness of his appearing, not the place is declared. Secondly, it is great presumption to define that which the Scripture hath not revealed▪ Christ's coming is only generally set down, he shall come in the clouds, Math. 24.30. And we shall be caught up in the clouds. 1. Thessaly 4.17. There is no particular description of the place. The Protestants. TO us it is no matter, which way Churches are builded, we may turn ourselves in prayer as well toward any one part of the heavens, as an other: Neither do we refuse to pray in Churches builded toward the East. But that our Oratories and places of prayer ought rather to be builded that way, than any other; out of the Scripture it cannot be proved, and we hold it as a mere superstitious opinion. Argu. 1. S. Paul exhorteth men every where to lift up pure hands. 1. Tim. 2.8. He saith, In every place, without exception, whether toward the East or the West, or wheresoever. 2. If any place were more dangerous than other to pray in, it is not so safe, and perhaps more perilous to pray toward the East for Idolaters were wont to turn them toward the East, and to worship the Sun rising. Ezech. 8.17. And for this cause the holy place in the Tabernacle was toward the West. Exod. 26.27. And it was the custom of the jews to pray Westward, lest they should be enticed to worship the Sun rising in his strength. And therefore the jesuite maketh but a bad argument: The jews prayed toward the West, Ergo. christians must pray toward the East: nay rather contrary, because they turned their back to the East, for fear of Idolatry; Christians, if any place were to be regarded more than other, aught upon the same ground also to follow the same custom, for as much as all men by nature are prone to Idolatry: and the reason of their so praying, seemeth rather to be moral, then ceremonial: This I say not, as though I commended the jews superstitious praying toward the West, but only to show that they have better reason for their custom, than our adversaries have for their superstitious turning toward the East. But to christians all places are alike. Augustine saith, cum quis quaritorationem, c●llocet membra, sicut ei occurrit. If any man be desirous to pray, let him place his body, as occasion serveth: he saith not, toward the East, or toward the West. ad Simplician. lib. 2. quaest. 4. AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART concerning the form and fashion of Churches. The Papists. error 48 THey would have their Churches to be built as salomon's Temple was, which consisted of three parts: there was first the porch or court for the people; then the holy place where the Altar stood, and the Priests offered sacrifice, and last of all the most holy place, where the Ark and Mercyseat were placed. So they have the Church porch, than the body of the Church, and above that, their Sanctuary, as they call it, or the queer or chancel, which was separated from the rest, by steps or stairs, hangings or curtains, and other partitions. And here must stand their Altar. Bellarm. lib. 3. de 〈◊〉 Sanctor. cap. 3. The Protestants. COncerning the fashion and form of Churches, and the 〈◊〉 and partitions within, we will not much contend, so these conditions be observed, First, that all superstition be avoided in making one place of the Church holier than the rest, wherein the Papists mightily offend▪ for the queer or chancel was for their Priests and singers, the other part of the Church for lay men, they were not to enter into that holy place: and thus according to the places, they divided the congregation: as though one part were more holy than the other▪ The people also were made to believe, that to be buried in the Chancel but especially under the Altar, was more available for the dead, then to be buried in the Church. But where learn they that our Churches ought to have a sanctuary, as the jewish Temple had? that was an evident type, and is now accomplished in our Saviour Christ, who is now entered into the heavens, as the high Priest then entered into the holy place to make atonement for the people. Heb. 9.24. This therefore is very gross, to revive and renew again jewish types and figures. And if herein they will imitate the building of salomon's Temple, to have a Sanctuary, why do they not also build toward the West, as the Temple was? why bring they not their Altar down into the body of the Church? for in their holy place there was no Altar. And indeed, Altar we acknowledge none, as afterward shallbe proved. But we see no reason▪ why the communion Table may not be set in the body of the Church, as well as in the Chancel, if the place be more convenient and fit to receive the Communicants. But I pray you why is your Altar rather set in your Sanctuary, than the font or Baptistery? they are both Sacraments, as well Baptism as the Lords Supper: why should one be preferred, as holier than the other? Secondly, all things in the Church ought to be done unto edifying, and therefore we allow no such partitions, as do hinder the edifying of the people and exclude them from hearing: as in popish Churches the Priest is pved or mewed up by himself a great way off, that his voice can hardly be perceived of the people: The Minister is so to stand and turn himself as he may be best heard and understood of the people: as Ezra had a pulpit of wood to stand in when he read the Law, Nehemiah. 8. 4. Augustine thus writeth, Cum Episcopus solus intus est, populus & orat eum illo, et quasi subscribens ad eius verba, respondet, Amen. While the Bishop or Pastor prayeth within, the people both prayeth together with him: and subscribing to his words, answereth, Amen. By this it appeareth, that though in Augustine's time the Minister had a place for himself (as it is meet he should) yet he so disposed himself, that his prayer was heard of all the people: for otherwise how could they pray with him, and subscribe or give assent to his words? THE SECOND PART, OF THE END and use of Churches. THis part hath 3. several points. First, whether the Churches of Christians are built to offer sacrifice in. Secondly, whether they be in themselves places more holy than others. Thirdly, whether they may be dedicated to saints. THE FIRST POINT OR ARTICLE, whether our Churches are for sacrifice. The Papists. THe principal end of Churches is for the sacrifice of Christians, and in that error 49 respect they are truly called Temples▪ they are not only for prayer, the preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, but chiefly for the external sacrifice of the Mass. Bellarm. cap. 4. Argu. 1. The Churches of Christians have altars, therefore sacrifices: that they have altars, he thus proveth: First 1. Corinth. 10.21. You can not be partakers of the Lords table, and the table of Devils: by the table here is meant the altar, for the table of the heathen was their altar, wherein they sacrificed to their Idols. Ans. 1. A table is one thing, an altar an other: and very unproperlye is an altar called a table: this place in any wise man's judgement maketh more against them then with them. Secondly, S. Paul speaketh not here of the sacrifices of the heathen nor of their altars, but of the feasts which they made in their idolatrous temples, which was done upon tables, of such sacrifices, as had been offered to idols: unto the which feasts S. Paul forbiddeth Christians to come, as it appeareth in the rest of the Chapter, and more plainly. cap. 8.10. Argu. 2. Heb. 13.10. We have an altar, of which they have no power to eat that serve at the Tabernacle: that is the altar whereon Christ's body is offered. Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum. Ans. The Apostle speaketh expressly of participation of the sacrifice of Christ's death, (as it is manifest in the 2. verses next following) which is by a Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remain in the ceremonial observations of the Levitical sacrifices. For the Apostle speaketh manifestly, verse 12. of the suffering of Christ without the gate: Christ therefore is the altar, yea our Priest and sacrifice too. You abuse this place to prove your material popish altars, which are many: but the Apostle saith, we have an altar, speaking of one. The Protestants. THe Churches of Christians are the houses of prayer, made to that end, that they should come together to hear the word of God read and preached, receive the sacraments, and offer up their spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving: other external sacrifices, or altars we acknowledge none. Argu. 1. The temple of the jews was called an house of prayer, that is, principally for prayer, Mark. ●1. 17. Moses was read and preached in their synagogues. Act. 15.21. Much more are the Churches of Christians appointed for preaching and prayer. Act. 20.7. The first day of the week, which is the Lords day, they came together to break bread, and Paul preached unto them. Ergo the administration of the word and sacraments with prayer, is the chief and only cause of the holy assemblies of Christians. Argu. 2. Altars we have none in our Churches. S. Paul calleth it the Lords table. 1. Corinth. 10.21. where we receive the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread, which is broken▪ 1. Corinthians 11.20. But bread is set upon Tables, not sacrificed upon Altars. Augustine also calleth it, Mensam Domini, the Lords table, Epist. 59 & epist. 50. He showeth how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximian a catholic Bishop, beating him with Clubs, even in the church, lignis altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt, and wounded him with the wood of the Altar, which they had broken down. Where though he improperly call it an Altar, yet was it a communion table framed of wood, and made to be removed, not fastened to the wall, as their popish Altars were. THE SECOND ARTICLE, WHETHER Churches are more holy places in themselves. The Papists. GOd (they say) rather dwelleth and is present in Churches, than else where: error 50 and therefore it is more available for a man, even to make his private prayer in the Church. Argum. 1. The Temple of Solomon was ordained even for the prayers of private men: and Solomon prayeth unto God, that they might be heard. 1. King. 8.38. So Anna prayed in the Tabernacle, 1. Sam. 1. And the apostles went up to the Temple to pray, Act. 3.1. Ergo, prayers made in the Temple are more available, Bellarm. cap. 4. Ans. 1. See what jewish arguments here are: because the Lord gave an especial blessing to his Temple amongst the jews, that was the only place for sacrifices, and so also a peculiar privileged place for prayer: therefore he will bind and tie himself to some certain place now. But our Saviour saith clean contrary unto the woman of Samaria, The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor in jerusalem worship my Father, john. 4.21. The prayers and sacrifices of Christians, are now no more tied and limited to places: That was but a type unto the jews, that as then God would be only heard in his Temple: so his name is now only truly invocated and called upon in his Church. 2. It is falsely alleged that the Apostles went up, only to pray, to the temple: they went up at the ninth hour of prayer, when the people were accustomed to go unto the Temple, that they might preach the gospel unto them. The Protestants. WE prefer public prayers made by the Congregation in the Church, before private prayers, not because of the place, but in respect of the congregation, whose prayers jointly all together are more fervent & effectual, than the prayer of one man: But if we compare public prayer with public, and private with private, we doubt not but that the one and the other being made in faith, may as well be heard out of the Church, as in it. Argum. 1. The promise of our Saviour is general, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together, I am in the midst amongst them, Math. 18.20. So S. Paul, I will that men every where lift up pure hands. 1. Tim. 2. Ergo, they may be heard praying in faith in any place. Argum. 2. So our Saviour saith, When thou prayest, enter into thy chamber: he saith not, go to the church. Bellarm. saith, he entereth into his chamber, that prayeth without vain glory, whether he do pray secretly or openly. Ans. Our saviours words are plain without allegory, for he speaketh of shutting the door of the chamber, and there is a manifest opposition between the pharisees praying in the corners of the streets, and the frequency of people, and the others praying in secret. Augustine saith, Quid supplicaturus Deo locum sanctum requiris? volen● in Templo orare, Lib. sententiar. Augu. in te ora: & ita age semper, ut Dei Templum sis, ibi enim Deus exaudit ubi habitat. When thou art about to pray, what needest thou go to any sacred place? wouldst thou pray in the Temple or Church? see that thou be the Temple of God, and there the Lord will soon hear where he dwelleth. THE THIRD ARTICLE, WHEther Churches and Temples maybe dedicated to saints. The Papists. error 51 THey nothing doubt, but as Churches may be consecrated, and dedicated to the honour of God, so they may be also unto saints. Argum. 1. The Temple of Solomon was not only built for sacrifices and prayer, but for the Ark of God also: as David sayeth to Nathan: Now I dwell in an house of Cedar trees, and the Ark of God remaineth within curtains. 2. Sam. 7.2. But there is as great honour, yea, and greater due to the relics of Saints: Ergo, it is lawful to build Temples unto them. Bellarmine cap. quarto. Ans. 1. When you have a commandment to build Churches for relics, as they had to build a Temple for the ark, ye may be bold to do it. 2. To build a Temple for the ark, was all one as to build an house for the Lord: for it was the Mercyseat of God: it pleased the Lord to dwell between the Cherubims, there to show evident tokens of his presence. And whereas David consulted to build an house for the ark, the Lord doth thus answer him by his Prophet: Shalt thou build me an house for my dwelling? verse 5. So the Temple was made in the honour of God, being made for the Ark. It was all one, for the Ark to dwell there, and the Lord himself to dwell there: This argument therefore maketh nothing for them. The Protestants. TO build Churches and religious houses in the name and honour of saints, and to make them patrons and Protectors of those places, and there to call upon them, and make prayers unto them, all which is defended by our adversaries, we hold it utterly unlawful, as tending to manifest impiety, and idolatry. Argum. 1. No divine worship is to be given to Saints, therefore no Churches to be made in their names For it is part of the divine worship to have Temples. Augustine saith, Nos non Martyribus Templa, sacerdotia aut sacra constituimus, quoniam non ipsi, sed Deus ●orum nobis Deus est: De civitat. Dei, lib. 8. cap. vlt. We do not ordain Temples, Priesthoods, or sacrifices for Martyrs: for not they, but their God, is both their God and ours: None therefore is to have a Temple but God. But mark I pray you their distinction: They say, that Religious houses as they are Temples, are only consecrated to God, but as they are Basilica, palaces, sumptuous buildings, the self same Churches may be dedicated to saints. Bellarm. ibid. Ans. If one and the same Church may be consecrate both to God and to some saint beside, I pray you who is the principal patron of that church: God or the saint? You will say I am sure, God is. But I will prove the contrary, because it hath the name of the faint: It is called by the name of S. Peter, S. Paul, or some other, not by the name of God: Thus they are not contented to make saints Gods fellows, but will even thrust him out of place, giving unto saints the honour of God's house. 2. How names are to be given to places, we can not better learn, then of those ancient founders of names the holy patriarchs: As Abraham Gen. 22.14. calleth the mountain jehovah-iireh, The Lord hath seen. So jacob giveth holy names to the place where he met the Angels, Gen. 32.2. and where he wrestled with the Angel, ver. 31. They as we see gave holy and reverent names unto places, not made peculiar for God's service, but only for civil use for the places to be called and known by: how much more ought churches and houses of God to be called by his name? We therefore conclude, that Churches ought not to be erected in Saints names, to worship them thereby, and make them our patrons, mediators, and presenters of our prayers: for this were great Idolatry: Even like as the Heathen called their Temples by the names of their Idols, Venus, jupiter, Diana and the like: Yet we refuse not to call our Churches by the names of Saints, as they have been called of old, because we are not inventors of names; and terms enured by continual custom can hardly be left. We use them only as civil terms to distinguish places by: if any otherwise use them, for any Religious purpose, they do amiss. And yet we deny not, but that the names of holy men may be safely remembered, by thanksgiving unto God for such excellent instruments, and setting before our eyes their good example. And concerning the names which have been superstitiously given in times passed unto Churches and other places (though it were to be wished, that they never had been so given) yet now we use them (setting apart all superstition) as civil names of difference, as S. Luke describeth the ship of Alexandria, wherein they were carried, whose badge (saith he) was Castor & Pollux, Act. 28.11. In a civil matter of description, he refuseth not to use the names of the heathen gods. Augustine also giveth a good rule concerning such names. He speaketh of the names of days, which were called after the names of heathenish Idols, as the 4. day in the week, which we call Wednesday, was then called and is yet in the Latin tongue, In Psal. 93. Dies Mercurij, Mercury his day. Sic dicitur, a paganis, & a multis Christianis, sed nolumus ut dicant, et utinam corrigantur: melius de ore Christiano ritus loquendi ecclesiasticus procedit. So it is called of the heathen, & of many christians, but I would not have them called so, and I wish they were amended: for a Christian kind of speaking best becometh a Christian. Sed si quem forte consuetudo traxerit, etc. sciat illos omnes homines fuisse. But if custom prevail with a man so to speak, let him understand that all they were but men, whom the heathen take for gods. So say we, it were to be wished, that we had names void of all show of superstition: but seeing for our speaking we must be ruled by custom, let us know that those saints, by whose names places are called, are no Gods, nor God's fellows, nor patrons, or Mediators for us, nor any way to be worshipped: But they are the fellow servants of all faithful Christians, to be reverenced with a Christian duty of love, not a religious worship of service. THE THIRD PART OF THE ADORning and beautifying of Churches. The Papists. error 32 THe Temples and Churches of Christians they would have built in the most sumptuous and costly manner, yea, in beauty to exceed the palaces of Princes, with silver, gold, silk, Velvet; to be decked and adorned, Bellarmine cap. 6. Argum. 1. The Tabernacle of the jews was of exceeding beauty: the Curtains thereof, of silk; the vessels, even to the snuffers for the Lamps, were of gold, the Priest's garment had a breastplate of gold, set about with precious stones: Therefore why should not the Temples of Christians be in like sort adorned, and set forth? as Isay prophesieth, that the Glory of Lebanon shall come, the Fir, Olive, and Box tree to beautify my sanctuary, Isai. 60.13. which is literally to be understood, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. First, if the jesuite had turned his argument and reasoned thus: the temple of the jews was gorgeous, and sumptuous, and beautiful to the eye: therefore Churches of Christians ought not to be so now: he had reasoned much better: for their serving of God was external; now God will be worshipped in spirit. All things were done unto them in types and figures: the outward glory of their temple was a lively figure of the spiritual beauty of the Church of Christ. Secondly, where you would have the prophecy of Isay to be literally understood, you have made a good argument for the jews: for than they shall have their sanctuary restored again, which the Prophet speaketh of by name. And if that place of Isay have a literal sense, why not that also, 54.10. I will lay thy stones with Carbuncle, and thy foundation with the sapphires: I will make thy windows of Emeralds, and thy gates shining stones? Say also that this shallbe literally performed: and so according to this gross sense, the prophecy of Haggie shall also be fulfilled: the glory of the last house shallbe greater than the first, Hagg. 2.10. But I think you never saw Church built in this goodly manner, in beauty surpassing the jewish temple, nor never shall. The Protestants. THat the Churches of Christians, and places of prayer, ought decently to be kept, yea and with convenient cost and seemly beauty to be built and repaired, and Church vessels with other necessary furniture, to be of the best, not of the worst sort, we do both commend it, and practise it: for so we learn by the example of our Saviour, that cast out of the temple sellers of doves and money changers, and would not suffer them to carry vessels through it, Mark. 11.15, 16. that the house of prayer ought to be reverently regarded: but yet it followeth not, that such immoderate and excessive cost should be bestowed upon the walls of the Church and Idols, to garnish and beautify idolatry, and poor people in the mean time to want. A Matron ought to go comely and decently appareled, though not tricked up with the jewels and ornaments of an harlot. Argum. 1. Our Saviour Christ reproveth the Scribes and Pharisees, because they drew the people to be good unto the altar, and bestow largely upon them, and so leave their parents helpless, Math. 15.5. And he often doth inculcate that golden saying, I will have mercy & not sacrifice: it is better to secure the living temples of God, which are the bodies of his poor children, then to bestow superfluous cost upon dead temples of stone. Argum. 2. Christ also doth rebuke them, because like hypocrites they did garnish the sepulchers of the Prophets, & yet persecuted their doctrine, Math. 23.29: so all popish pharisees are worthy of blame, that take greater care in garnishing the temples and tombs of the holy Apostles and Martyrs, than they do in setting forth their holy doctrine, and preaching the Gospel, nay they do contemn, persecute, and hate that doctrine, for the which those holy men died: so that this proverb was very well devised of them; In times past we had golden Priests and wooden Cups, now we have wooden Priests and golden Cups. Augustine exhorting the people to be liberal to their Bishops and Pastors, thus writeth further: Forte ecclesiam fabricat, forte utile aliquid in domo dei molitur, In Psal. 105 part. 2. expectat ut attendas, expectat, ut intelligas super egenum. Perhaps he is in building a Church, and doing some profitable work in the house of God, he looketh that thou shouldest attend, and consider of his need. By this it appeareth, that Churches were not superfluous costly in Augustine's time: for nothing was done, but what was thought necessary and profitable: and the builders (which were then for the most part their Bishops) were not of any great ability, to bestow superfluous cost, nay they were not able to finish the necessary works, without the benevolence and contribution of the people. THE FOURTH PART OF THE DEDICAtion of Churches. The Papists. error 53 THe superstitious dedication of their Churches, with the Annual memories thereof, they would warrant by the example of our Saviour Christ, who was present at the feast of the dedication, which was instituted by judas Macchabeus, john 10.22. and by his presence allowed it, Rhemist in eum locuum. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, a thanksgiving to God for the restitution of the temple after the horrible profanation thereof; is a thing approved by God's law, but it is not necessary to keep a yearly memory thereof: for neither was there any such instituted by Ezechiah, after the profanation of the temple by Achaz and Urias, nor by josias, after the same had been most horribly polluted by Manasses and Amon, nor by Zorobabel, Esdras or Nehemiah, after it was re-edified, when it had been utterly destroyed by the Chaldees Fulk. ibid. Secondly, your popish hallowing of Churches hath nothing like unto it, but the name: for they use a number of foolish ceremonies, & many of them gross superstitions, in the dedication of their Churches. First, there are twelve Crosses painted round about in the Church, & twelve burning Lamps set over against every one of them, one against one: hereby (say they) the twelve Apostles are signified, that by the preaching of the Cross gave light to the whole world. Secondly, they use oil in anointing their Altar, and other vessels, showing hereby that they are consecrate to holy uses. Thirdly, they sprinkle water, burn incense, set up Taper light: this showeth (saith the jesuite) that the place is consecrate to prayer, and other holy actions. Fourthly, they sprinkle ashes round about the Church, and write in the floor the Greek and Latin Alphabet from one side of the Church to the other. This betokeneth (say they) the preaching of faith, which is the foundation and ground of all righteousness, which was first taught in the Greek and Latin tongue. Fiftly, they beat upon the Church door, and call upon Saints and Angels: that is, (say they) to command Satan to departed, Bellarm. cap. 5. First, they offend in the number of their foolish ceremonies, exceeding herein the manner of the jewish dedication: so that unto them it may be said, as Paul to the Galathians; How turn you again to impotent and beggarly rudiments? 4.9. Secondly, they have no warrant for their frivolous shadows and significations: Coloss. 2.17. which are but shadows of things to come, but the body is in Christ: we have the body, what need any more shadows? Christ will not now be worshipped with Crosses, ashes, characters, candle light, & such apish toys. Thirdly, some of these ceremonies are impious, and sacrilegious: the invocation of Angels and Saints, is a robbing of God of his honour, who only is to be prayed unto. Augustine saith of such inventors of new rites and ceremonies, Ipsam religionem, quam deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit, oneribus premunt: Epistol. 119 They cumber religion with burdensome ceremonies, which the Lord hath made free with a few sacraments. THE FIFT PART OF THINGS HALLOWED and consecrate for Churches. The Papists. THey maintain their superstitious & popish blessing with the Cross, the hallowing of wax, fire, palms, ashes, holy bread, holy water, salt, oil, & such error 54 like: which have power, as they would bear us in hand, to drive away diseases and evil spirits, Rhemist. annot. 2. Timoth. 4. sect. 12.13. Bellar. lib. 3. cap. 7. Arg. 1. First, for the hallowing of these creatures to holy uses, and making of them actually holy, they allege that saying of S. Paul, 1. Timoth. 4.5. Every creature of God is good and is sanctified by the word of God and prayer: Ergo, these creatures may be sanctified to holy uses, as the water also in baptism, and bread and wine in the Eucharist: for the Apostle speaketh not here only of the common benediction of meats, but of a more high and exact applying of creatures to holy uses, Rhemist. Ans. 1. S. Paul here speaketh only of the common & ordinary use of God's creatures, as of meats & drinks for every man's private use & he showeth how they are sanctified by the word of God, which permitteth unto the faithful the free use of them, and by prayer: not that they are unclean by nature, but by pollution of sin: and by this means are made holy and clean. Secondly, we confess also, that some things set apart for the service of God, are more specially called holy, as the Ark, Altar, & Temple: but it is not lawful to sever what creatures we will from the common use, and consecrate them to the service of God, but such as are appointed by his word; as water in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper have the warrant of God's word, as none of your popish trumpery have: neither are these creatures so consecrate holy in themselves, to confer or impart their holiness to other things, but are so called in respect of the holy use, for the which out of the word of God they are appointed. Argum. 2. For the efficacy and power of these hallowed things, they thus reason. The bitter water given to the adulterous woman caused her thigh to rot, if she were guilty, otherwise it made her fruitful. Numb. 5. Elisaeus healed the bitter water with casting in salt: the Apostles healed the sick with anointing them with oil, Rhemist. Bellarm. ibid. Ergo, these sanctified creatures may do the like. Ans. First, the bitter water of itself had not that power, but by virtue of that oath, with the which the woman was charged. Again, it hath the warrant of the word, as yours have not. Secondly, Elisaeus and the Apostles had the spirit to work miracles, so have not you: and they might have done that they did without any such means. Again, it was common salt, and ordinary oil which they used, not blessed before, after your popish manner. The Protestants. FIrst, we hold that no such things ought to be separated for holy uses, because they have not the warrant of the word of God: for all things that are sanctified, are so sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1. Timoth. 4.5. But they have not the word of God for their warrant, neither do they use any prayer of faith, but a superstitious kind of crossing. Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire, because they offered strange fire, not taken from the Altar: that is, they presumed of their own authority, without God's commandment, to consecrate a strange element to God's service, and were punished, Leuit. 10. Ergo, it is dangerous without God's word, to consecrate any such things. Concerning the sprinkling and washing with holy water: Augustine thus writeth of the same or like custom of washing: Ne ad ipsum baptismi sacramentum videretur pertinere, Epistol. 119 cap. 18. multi hoc in consuetudinem recipere noluerunt: nonnulli de consuetudine auferre non dubitarunt. Many would not receive that custom, lest it should seem to be another baptism: and some have not doubted clean to take it away. Secondly, though such things were rightly hallowed, yet have they no such power: Christ showeth the way, whereby evil spirits are chased away: by prayer and fasting, Mark. 9.9. And therefore to conjure creatures, to expel Satan, without the word of God, is no better than a kind of Magic & enchantment. THE SEVENTH QUESTION OF PILGRImages and Processions. The Papists. FIrst, they hold that pilgrimages made to jerusalem and the holy land, as they call it, to Rome, and to the memories of Saints in other places, to ask and obtain error 55 their help, are godly and religious, and to be much used of Christians, Concil. Trident. sess. 25. Bellarm. cap. 8. The halt and lame went up to jerusalem to be healed in the pool of Bethesda, john. 5. Certain Greeks' came up to worship at the feast, john. 12.20. The Eunuch went up in pilgrimage to jerusalem, Act. 8. Ergo, it is lawful and requisite, Rhemist. Ans. First, when you can prove that such miracles are wrought at the memories of Saints, as the scripture testifieth of this pool, men may be bold to go unto them for their bodily health, as we see there is resort unto Baths: but not for any religion. Secondly, the Grecians, that visited jerusalem, were jews that dwelled amongst the Gentiles, or Proselytes, which were bound to visit the temple at jerusalem. Thirdly, the Eunuch went not up in pilgrimage to jerusalem, but to worship: for there was yet no other known place of the world, where God was worshipped. Secondly, their solemn processions, especially upon Palm Sunday, with carrying the Sacrament about, strawing of rushes, bearing of palms, setting up error 56 of boughs, hanging up rich clothes, the choir and choristers singing: they would warrant by that action of our Saviour Christ, Math. 21.8. when he came riding to jerusalem, and the people strawed their garments in the way, Rhemist. annot. Math. 21. sect. 1. Ans. First, your processions are horrible abusings and profanations of the Lords institution, who ordained his Supper to be eaten and drunk, not to be carried about in procession like an heathenish Idol. Secondly, that which the people and Christ's disciples did, they had warrant for out of the scripture: but who required this theatrical pomp at your hands? The riding of Christ upon an ass was before prophesied of, Zachar. 9 and the children's crying out in the temple, Psal. 8. The cutting down of palm branches was a ceremony belonging to the feast of Tabernacles, truly accomplished by our deliverance in Christ. But you have turned the holy mystery of Christ's riding to jerusalem, to a May-game, and Pageant play. The Protestants. FIrst, that no places ought to be frequented or resorted unto for religions sake, or more holiness, or for the health of the soul: we prove it out of the word of God. Saint Peter saith, That in every nation, he that feareth God is accepted with him, Act. 10.35. Ergo, one nation is as holy as another. And now our Saviour saith, That God will not be worshipped at jerusalem, or in Mount Garrizin, but in spirit and truth, john. 4. He therefore that seeketh places to worship God in, as though he were rather to be found in one place then another, hath left the spiritual worship. Augustine thus writeth concerning pilgrimage: He wisheth men to seek them teachers and instructors, by whom they might be taught: De erat in ea terra, quam incolebas: quae causa utilius cogeret peregrinari? But is there no teacher in the country where thou dwellest? what better cause canst thou have to travel, and go in pilgrimage to seek one in other countries? De utilit. credend. cap. 7. Thus he would have men to play the pilgrims, not to run gadding to Relics and Images, but to seek for teachers and instructors. Secondly, the popish pompous processions are both superstitious, in reviving and renewing the jewish ceremonies, such as the feast of Tabernacles was, which are all now abolished as shadows by the coming of Christ. And they are plainly idolatrous, for they carry about their breaden god in procession, and make an Idol of a piece of baked wheat: but Paul saith, The Sacrament ought to be received with thanksgiving in the Churches and congregations of Christians, 1. Corinth. 11.33. not to be carried about to be gazed upon in the fields. Seemly processions, void of superstition, which are used for civil purposes, as to maintain the limits and bounds of townships, and withal by the sight of God's blessing upon the creatures to be stirred up to thankfulness, we neither mislike nor condemn. AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE HOLY LAND, and holy wars for the same, as they were called. The Papists. THey which are but a little acquainted with ancient stories, shall find, that error 57 there were never in Christendom such bloody wars, and for so long a time, as those, which were at the instigation of the Popes, taken in hand by christian Princes for the recovery of the holy land in so much that they were made to believe, that it was a meritorious work●. Whereupon King Richard the first, calling to mind his rebellion and disobedience to his father, in part of satisfaction purposed a voyage into the Holy land, as it was called, to redeem Christ's patrimony from the Infidels, Fox. pag. 235. Bellarm. de laicis. lib. 3. cap. 16. First, for why? they say it is an Holy land: for if the places of God's apparition are coun●●● holy. Exod. 3.5. josua. 5.15. much more the places of Christ's nativity, burial, passion, and resurrection. Saint Peter calleth the place where Christ was transfigured, 2. Pet. 1.18. The holy mount, Rhemist. 1: Timoth. 4▪ sect. 10. Ans. The places, where God appeared in times past, were holy for that time only of God's presence, not for ever after: and the mount is called holy in respect of the time, wherein the transfiguration was; not that the holiness of the place doth always continue: for that place which jacob called Bethel, the house of God, Genes. 28. is by the Prophet called Bethaven, the house of wickedness, Ose. 4.15. because of the idolatries there committed: what was now become of the holiness of the place? The Protestants. TO war against the Turks upon just cause, as to seek to defend ourselves from their invasions, and to maintain the confines and bounds of Christendom, to deliver Christians unjustly and cruelly kept in slavery under him, we hold it lawful: but to wage battle with him, only for a superstitious devotion to the land of Palestina, to recover it out of his hand, we see no warrant at all for it. Argum. 1. The evil success that Christians have had against them, and the shameful overthrows that they have sustained at their hands, do evidently show, that God was not pleased with those superstitious wars. While Princes had a good quarrel, seeking only to maintain their own, and to deliver Christian countries from the thraldom of the Turks, God prospered them, as the famous victories of Scanderbeius, and johannes Hunniades obtained against Amurathes the 8. Turkish Emperor, do notably testify: but those superstitious and pope-holy wars, though sometime they had good success, yet in the end all went to wrack. And as their cause was not good, so neither were the means that they used: for they brought S. George, and S. Denys into the field against the Turks, and left Christ at home If the Israelites could not be delivered from the Philistims by the presence of the Ark, but thirty thousand fell before them, and all because of their sins: let not men think that popish Saints can defend them, while their lives remain unreformed at home. 2. That the heathen are not to be provoked to war, but upon just cause: that is, when they provoke us; it appeareth by the example of the Israelites, who as they came from Egypt, sent unto the King of Edom and Moab, that they might have leave to walk through their land: but they not granting so much, yet the people of God offered them no violence, but went a longer journey about, judg. 11.17. Augustine saith, Sapiens gesturus est justa bella: sed multo magis dolebit justorum necessitatem extitisse bellorum: A wise man will take just war in hand: De civitat. dei. 19.7. but it more grieveth him that he hath just cause to war. And what he meaneth by just war, he further showeth: Iniquitas partis adversae justa bella ingerit gerenda sapienti. The iniquity or injuries of the adverse part, doth give unto a wise man occasion of just war. Just war therefore ariseth, when men are provoked by injuries. THE EIGHT QUESTION CONCERNING holy and festival days. THis question hath divers parts. First, of holy days in general. Secondly, of the Lords day. Thirdly, of the Festival days of Christ and the holy Ghost. Fourthly, of Saints holy days. Fiftly, of the time of Lent. THE FIRST PART OF HOLY DAYS in general. The Papists. error 58 FIrst, they hold that holy and festival days, are in themselves, and properly and truly, more sacred and holy, than other days are, Bellarm. cap. 10. proposit. 2. Apocalyps. 1.10. I was in the spirit (saith the Apostle) on the Lord's day: God revealeth such great things to Prophets rather upon holy days, then profane days: Ergo, some days holier than other, Rhemist. Apocal. 1. sect. 6. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, God giveth not his graces in respect of times, but according to his own pleasure. Times of prayer he chooseth often, and of other godly exercises, not for the worthiness or holiness of the times, but for the better disposition of his servants in such exercises, to receive them: yet this was not perpetually observed: for God appeared to Moses keeping of sheep, Exod. 3. to Amos following his herd, Amos 7. Secondly, we grant that the Lords day being commanded of God, and so discerned from other days, may be said to be holier than the rest, in respect of the present use, but not in the nature of the day: for than could it not have been changed from the last day in the week to the first: as water in Baptism is holier than other waters, because of the sacred use, not in itself, as by a quality of holiness inherent. And as for other festival days, which have not the like institution, they are appointed only of the Church, for Christian policy & order's sake, for the exercise of religion. But this now popish, & before time jewish distinction of days, as being by their nature ho●●er than other, is flatly against the Apostles rule. Rom. 14.5. One putteth difference between day and day, and Galath. 4.10. You observe days and months, times and years. Augustine saith, Nos dominicum diem & pascha celebramus, sed quia intelligimus, quo pertineant, non tempora obseruamus, sed quae illis significantur temporibus, Cont. Adimant. cap. 16. We keep the Lords day and the feast of Easter, not observing the times, but remembering what is signified by those times: that is, for what cause they were ordained: Ergo, observers of times are reproved. The Papists. 2. THey affirm the keeping and sanctification of holy days to be necessary, error 59 Rhemist. annot. Galath. 4. sect. 5. and that we are bound in conscience to keep the holy days appointed of the Church, although no offence or scandal might follow and ensue upon the neglecting of them. Esther 9 Mardocheus and Esther appoint a new festival day, not instituted of God, and bind every one to the observing thereof, that none should fail to observe it. ver. 27. Ergo men bound in conscience to keep festival days. Bellarm. ca 10. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, though we refuse not some other festival days, yet we acknowledge none necessary, more than are of the holy Ghosts appointing in the Scripture. Secondly, we deny that the constitutions of the Church for holy days do bind Christians, in respect of the days themselves, in conscience to keep them, otherwise than they may give offence by their contempt and disobedience to the wholesome decrees of the Church: for itself in it own nature is indifferent, neither can the Church make a thing necessary in nature, which God hath left indifferent: nothing bindeth absolutely in conscience, but that which is necessary by nature: wherefore keeping of holy days, being not enjoined but left indifferent in the word, bindeth no otherwise then we have said. Thirdly, the example of Esther showeth that the Church hath authority to appoint for civil uses, days of rejoicing: that festival day then begun did not bind the observers in conscience, no otherwise then they were bound in all lawful things to obey their governors, for their consent was required, and they promised both for themselves & their seed to keep that day. Esther. 9.27. Whereby it appeareth that they were not bound absolutely in conscience to observe it. Augustine speaking of the Sabbath, saith thus: De tempor. ser. 36. haec est dies quam fecit Dominus, exultemus & laetemur in ea. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad therein, Psal. 118.24. This only holy day he saith, is of the Lords making, and therefore of all other necessary to be kept. THE SECOND PART, OF THE Lord's day. The Papists. THe several points wherein our adversaries and we do differ about the error 60 Christian Sabbath, are these. First, the principal exercise of the Sabbath, say they, is for the people to come to the Church and hear Mass, which their abominable and idolatrous sacrifice they make the proper work of the Sabbath, Catechism. Roman. pag. 649. The Protestants. THe Sabbath was ordained for the people to assemble together to hear the word read, Act. 15.21. & preached, and to receive the Sacraments, Act. 20.7. and to offer up their prayers: these were the proper exercises of the Sabbath: as for the popish sacrifice of the Mass, we find no mention at all thereof in Scripture. The Papists. error 61 2. WE descent about the rest of the Sabbath: they allow such works to be done upon the Sabbath, as shallbe permitted by the Prelates and Ordinaries, and such as by long custom have been used. Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants. WE hold, that as the Lords day was instituted of God, so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy, is to be learned out of the word, and neither custom nor authority ought to give liberty for such works upon the Lord's day, as are not warranted by the word. First, we grant that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabbath as the jews were: for those things are abolished which appertained to the jewish Sabbath: First, the prescript of the day. Secondly, the ceremonious exercises of the Sabbath in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law. Thirdly, the typical shadows and significations of their Sabbath, as first it betokened their rest in Canaan; then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ, Hebre. 4.3. 5. Fourthly, the strict and precise rest, wherein Christians have more liberty than the jews had: and again, they observed their rest, as being properly and simply, and in itself a sabbath days duty; but we do consider it, as being referred to a more principal end: as making of us more fit for spiritual exercises. Secondly, we allow these works to be done: First, opera religiosa or pietatis, the religious works, and conferring to piety: as the Priests did slay the sacrifices upon the Sabbath, and yet broke not the rest of the Sabbath, Math. 12.5. so the people may walk to their parish Church, though somewhat far off: the Pastor & Minister may go forth to preach, yea, and preaching is of itself a labour of the body, to study also and meditate of his Sermon, to ring the bells to call the people to the Church: all these are lawful, as being helps for the exercises of religion. Secondly, opera charitatis, the works of mercy are permitted, as to visit the sick, the Physician to resort to his patient, yea, to show compassion to brute beasts, as to help the sheep out of a pit, Math. 12.11. Thirdly, opera necessitatis, the works of necessity, as the dressing of meat and such like, Math. 12.1.3. Our Saviour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the ears of Corn, when they were hungry. As for opera voluntaria, works of pleasure and recreation, we have no other permission to use them, then as they shallbe no let's or impediments unto spiritual exercises, as the hearing of the word, and meditating therein, and such other: Otherwise they are not to be used. Augustine saith, speaking of the jews, who did greatly profane their Sabbath, in sporting and dalliance: Melius toto die foderent, quàm toto die saltarent: In Psal. ●2. part 1. It were better for them to dig all day, then to dance all day: even so verily, it were better for many poor ignorant people, that upon the Sabbath give themselves to drinking, and quaffing, & gaming, if they should go to plough or cart all the day. But as for other servile works, as to keep Fairs and Markets upon the Lord's day, to travel themselves, their servants, and beasts upon the Sabbath, it is flat contrary to the commandment of God, and the practice of the Church, Nehemiah 13.16. where there is no extreme and urgent necessity: so that it is not to be doubted, but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commandment; so also the manner of the observing thereof in sanctifying it, and resting therein is moral: the ceremonies of the rest being abolished, that is, the jewish strictness thereof, and the opinion which they had of their rest, as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabbath. But we do consider it, as referred unto more principal duties, and observe it, not as of itself pleasing God, but as making us more fit for spiritual exercises. Contrary to these rules, we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries, nor privilege in custom, to dispense with the sanctification of the Sabbath. The Papists. THey affirm that the Apostles altered the sabbath day, from the seaveth day to the eight, counting from the creation, and they did it without scripture, error 62 or any commandment of Christ: such power (say they) hath God left to his Church. This than they hold, that the sabbath was changed by the ordinary power and authority of the Church, not by any especial direction from Christ: thereupon it followeth, that the Church, which (they say) cannot err, may also change the sabbath to any other day in the week, Rhemist. Apoca. 1. sect. 6. The Protestants. 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the jewish sabbath, but Christ himself 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 spirit. 2. They did not appoint a new sabbath of their own authority: for first they knew by the scripture, that one day of seven was to be observed for ever, for the service of God and exercise of religion, although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate: for the Lord before the moral law was written, even immediately after the creation, sanctified the seventh day, showing thereby, that one of the seven must be observed so long as the world endured. Secondly, they knew there was the same reason of sanctifying the day of Christ's resurrection, and the restitution of the world thereby, as of sanctifying the day of the Lords rest, after the creation of the world. Thirdly, they did it by the direction of the spirit of God, whereby they were so directed and governed, that although they were frail men by nature, and subject to error: yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church, from the truth, which assurance of God's spirit in the like measure the Church hath not: but so far 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 keep it upon Monday or Tuesday, or any other day: seeing it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself, delivered by the Apostles: for the Lord's day began in the Apostles time, and no doubt by their Apostolic authority directed by the spirit 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 Sabbath, as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherefore the law of the Sabbath as it is now kept and observed, is perpetual. The Papists. error 63 4. THey affirm that the keeping of the Lords day, in stead of the jewish Sabbath, is a tradition of the Apostles, and not warranted by Scripture, Rhemist. Math. 15. sect. 3. The Protestants. THe observation of the Lords day is not delivered by blind tradition, but hath testimony of holy Scriptures, 1. Corinth. 16.2. Act. 20.7. Apocal. 1.10. and the observation thereof is according to God's commandment, not after the doctrine of men, Fulk ibid. The Papists. error 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commanded, and likewise kept for some mystical signification, not only for the remembrance of benefits already accomplished, as of the resurrection of Christ, and the Aduent or coming down of the holy spirit: but also to betoken unto us things to come, as our rest and glory in the kingdom of God, Bellarm. de cultu sanctor. li. 3. ca 11. The Protestants. 1. WE grant, that the Sabbath may be so applied, both to call to remembrance things already, as upon that day done: as the resurrection of Christ, and the descending of the holy Ghost. Some think also that Christ upon that day was baptised, August. de tempor. ser. 154. upon that day turned water into wine, fed five thousand with a few loaves, came unto his Apostles after his resurrection the doors being shut, and that as upon this day he shall appear to judgement: but upon what ground I know not: Certain it is that upon this day Christ rose again, and that the holy Ghost came down then upon his Apostles. We deny not but that the keeping of the Lords day holy, may fitly bring unto our remembrance these things: yea and that it may be a type and symbol unto us in some sort, both of things spiritual, as to betoken our ceasing and resting from the works of sin, Hebr. 4.10. and 1. Pet. 4.1. as also of things to come, as the kingdom of heaven is called a Sabbath, Isai. 66.23. But we dare not, neither will affirm, that the Sabbath was ordained & constituted for any such end: for the commandment of the Sabbath now to us is only moral, not typical or ceremonial, as the jewish Sabbath was: but look wherein the Sabbath was moral to the jews, so it is kept still: As in these two points it was moral to them: first, to be a sign between them and the Lord, and to distinguish them from other people, Exod. 31.17. And so also the right keeping of the Lords day is a notable outward mark of difference between the Church of God & all others. Secondly, that upon the Sabbath they should resort together, and hear the law read and preached, Act. 15.21. And for this cause, namely, the exercise of religion, are Christians chief bound to the Sabbath. It may (I say) fitly be drawn to resemble heavenly and spiritual things: but that is not any end of the institution. The jews had two kind of types, typos factos, and, typos destinatos, types made and applied, and types appointed and ordained of God to shadow forth some notable thing: as the Paschall Lamb, was typus destinatus, of our Saviour Christ, as they were not to break a bone of the Lamb, so was it accordingly performed in Christ. They had also many types beside, that were not destined to signify any certain thing: of such S. Paul speaketh, 1. Corinth. 10, 6, 11. So we say of the Sabbath, that it is not typus destinatus, it is not instituted for any shadow or signification, though it may be fitly applied to such an use. The Papists. 6. THey say that we are not bound upon the Sabbath by any peculiar commandment to abstain from sin, more than upon any other day: neither error 65 that the internal act of religion appertaineth to the keeping of the Sabbath, but the external: that any sin committed upon the Sabbath is not thereby the greater: neither that we are more bound upon the Sabbath to seek for internal grace then upon any other day, Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 10. propos. 4. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we grant that all sin, as of theft, adultery, and the like, are in their own nature alike, at what time soever they are committed, yet they may be made more heinous by the circumstances: as of the place, as sacrilege is greater than common theft, so why not of the time? Secondly, if that which is no sin upon the workday, be a sin upon the Sabbath, as to dig, to plough, to cart, then that which is a sin of itself, as to steal, to commit adultery, must needs be greater & more heinous being done upon the Sabbath: for beside the sin, he also profaneth the Sabbath, which is the breach of another commandment. Thirdly, the internal act of religion is properly commanded in the sanctifying of the Sabbath: for it cannot be sanctified by the external act of going to Church, and hearing the word, unless a man be inwardly in the devotion of his heart prepared for those holy exercises. So inward grace is more sought for upon the Sabbath, not in respect of that inward desire which we have unto them, which ought always to be alike fervent in us, if it were possible, but because of those outward means, of hearing the word, public prayer, receiving the Sacraments, which are upon the Sabbath: for the which we ought more especially to prepare & examine ourselves, Ecclesiast. 4.17. 1. Corinth. 11.28. Augustine saith, speaking of the jewish women: Quanto meliùs foeminae e●rum lanam facerent, quàm illo die in neomenijs saltarent: spiritualiter observat Sabbatum Christianus, abstinens se ab opere seruili, id est, à peccato: Tractat. 3. in johan. Their women might be better occupied in spinning at home, then in dancing upon this day: for a Christian doth spiritually keep the Sabbath, in abstaining from all servile work, that is, from sin. They then that do observe the Sabbath only in external acts, do but carnally keep it. The Papists. error 66 7. THey hold it a thing unlawful for Christians to fast upon the Lord's day, Bellarm. lib. 3. de cultu sanctor. cap. 11. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we grant that this opinion is very ancient, & that in Tertullians' time it was received in many Churches: and they thought it as unlawful to bow the knee upon the Lord's day, Tertul. lib. de coron. Militis. Die dominico ieiunare nefas ducimus, & de geniculis adorare: We count it unlawful to fast upon the Lord's day, and to pray kneeling. But the Papists observe not the one, why then should they bind themselves to the other? Ignatius maketh fasting upon the Sabbath as great an offence, as the kill of Christ himself, Epistol. ad Philipp. But, I trust, they will not say so. Secondly, the reasons why fasting is not to be used upon the Lord's day, because the jesuite setteth down none, I will supply out of Augustine: first, Sentio (saith he) ad significandam requiem sempiternam (ubi est verum Sabbatum) relaxationem, Epistol. 86. quàm constrictionem ieiunij aptius convenire. I think, that to signify the eternal rest, which is the true Sabbath, liberty rather, than the urging of fasting doth most fitly agree. But to this we answer, that this signification of eternal rest, is no essential part of sanctifying the Sabbath, nor no end of the institution, as we have showed afore, though it may have such an application: and therefore this reason proveth not such a necessity of not fasting upon the Sabbath. Secondly, Die dominico ieiunare magnum est scandalum: It is a great offence to fast on the Lord's day, because the Manichees made choice of that day to fast in: Per quod factum est, ut jeiunium Sabbati horribilius haberetur, By the which (saith he) it came to pass, that the fast of the Sabbath was more abhorred, Augustin. ibid. But this reason now bindeth not us, because the name and heresy of the Manichees is now worn out, and therefore there is no fear of any scandal to arise that way. Thirdly, we grant that the Lords day is not the fittest time for public fasts: first, because it is a day of rejoicing: so we read that the people in Nehemiah his time, were forbidden to mourn and weep, after the law was read unto them by Ezra, because it was a day of joy and mirth, Nehem. 8.11. Secondly, the day of solemn and public fasting aught to be set a part from other days, and to be proclaimed solemnly, and to be spent wholly in spiritual exercises, even as the Sabbath, with vacation and rest from other bodily labours, as we may read, 2. Chronicl. 20.3. Nehem. 9.1. And therefore any day is more fit than the Sabbath, because that is a holy day already unto the Lord: but when we will humble ourselves before the Lord by fasting and prayer, some day would only for that purpose be consecrate unto GOD: that may be as a voluntary sacrifice: whereas we are bound of necessity to keep the Lords day. But concerning private and particular fasts, when men by themselves have occasion to give themselves to prayer, whereof S. Paul speaketh, 1. Corinth. 7.5. Such private exercises may be better performed upon the Sabbath, because of the ordinary exercises of the word, which are notable means to kindle and stir up true devotion in him, which at that time will humble himself: yea and public fasts, though not ordinarily, yet when there is just occasion, may be kept upon the Sabbath: as we read Act. 20.7. how that Paul continued his preaching till midnight: whereof Augustine writeth thus, Necessarius sermo resiciendi corporis causa interrumpendus esse non visus est profecturo Apostolo: The necessary preaching of the Apostle, he thought not good, for the refreshing of their bodies to break off, being ready to departed. We conclude therefore, that it is lawful to fast upon the Lord's day, though it be not always expedient. And Augustine very well determineth this matter: Ego in Euangelicis, & Apostolicis literis video praeceptum esse jeiunium: quibus autem diebu●●non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto domini, vel Apostolorum non inuen●o de finitum: I find both in the evangelical and Apostolical writings, that fasting is commanded: but upon what days we ought to fast, upon what we ought not, I do not find it defined, Epistol. 86. Wherefore to fast or not to fast upon the Lord's day, or upon any other, being not determined in scripture, is left as a thing indifferent to the Church of God. The Papists. error 67 8. THe name Sunday, is an heathenish calling, as all other weekdays in our language: some imposed after the names of Planets, as in the Romans time: some by the name of certain Idols, which the Saxons did worship▪ which names the Church useth not, but hath appointed to call the first day the Dominike, after the Apostle, Apocal. 1.10. the other by the name Feries, until the last of the week, which she calleth by the old name Sabbath, because that was of God, not by imposition of the heathen, Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 1. sect. 6. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, as the name of Sunday, and the rest, is of the heathenish beginning, and therefore were better to be otherwise termed, as the first, second, or third from the Lords day, as the jews called their days from the Sabbath: so your term of feries, is no less heathenish, derived from the word feria, or feriae, which were so called a feriendis victimis, of striking the heathenish sacrifices, as Sextus Pompeius saith, Fulk. ibid. 2. We have other names also that might be reform, as of our months; as March is so called of Mars, August. count Faust. 18.5. june of juno, january of janus, which were heathen gods: july and August do bear the names of men: yea, and if we might be inventors of new names, the terms of Christmas, Michaelmas, Candlemas, should not stand in force, nor any more be used, which are as offensive as the rest: for as for the names of heathen Idols, the most part are ignorant of them: but the vulgar term of Mass, is to too well known, & too much loved of many of our country men. Now for the name Sunday, which is so great a mote in your eye, if there were no more but that: Augustine showeth, how it might be favourably expounded, Dies magni solis celebramus, illius solis, de quo dicit scriptura, orietur vobis sol justitiae: We do keep Sunday holy, namely, of that great Sun, whereof the scripture speaketh, the Sun of righteousness shall arise. 3. We wish that all these terms might be laid down, as Augustine saith, Nolumus, ut dicant, & utinam corrigantur ut non dicant: We would not have men so to speak, In Psal. 93. and I wish they were reform. But seeing by continual custom men's tongues are enured to such terms, let them know, that they are used only as civil names, to call things by, not for any religion or mystery in them contained, or signified. THE THIRD PART, OF THE FESTIVAL days of Christ and the holy Ghost. The Papists. THE feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide, and other solemnities of Christ, were error 68 prescribed (they say) by the Apostles, Rhemist. Matth. 15. sect. 2. to be kept upon certain days, and that Peter did appoint that Easter should not be kept the 14. day of the first Moon, as the jews observed it, but the lords day after. And of the feast of Pentecost mention is made, 1. Corinth. 16.8. Ergo, these feasts were instituted of the Apostles: Bellarm. cap. 12.13. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we grant that it is expedient for the Church to keep the memorial of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ, and of the coming of the holy Ghost; and the days instituted for the remembrance thereof, no doubt, aught to be had in greater account, than any other holy days instituted by the Church. Secondly, it cannot be proved, that they were prescribed by the Apostles, or if they were, but as indifferent ceremonies, which are subject to alteration, and in the which the religion or worship of God doth not consist. Certain it is, that before the time of Constantine the great, there were not many festival days kept, in so much, that the feasts of the Nativity of Christ, Easter, Pentecost, were not uniformally observed for many years after, as appeareth by diverse Counsels. Concil. Aurel. 4. c. 1. Tolet. 10. cap. 1. And before Constantine's time, there was great contention between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East, about the celebration of Easter: they alleging the constitution of Saint john, the other of Saint Peter: wherefore it is like, that the Apostles appointed no such certain days: for then the Church would not have broken them. Thirdly, Pentecost, whereof Saint Paul speaketh, was the feast of the jews, which with other solemnities of theirs the Apostles observed not as a portion of Christian religion, but taking occasion of the meeting of the jews in those festival days: and so do we observe those holy days for order and edification of God's people, that use to assemble at such times, Fulk. Matth. 15. sec. 3. Fourthly, what cause is there, why Easter and Whitsuntide should be tied to the Lords day, and the Nativity of Christ, which Bellarmine confesseth, was upon the Lord's day, should indifferently be kept upon any day? but that hereby we understand, that it is an indifferent matter, whether they should be kept upon the Lord's day, or any other, and whether upon any certain day, or to be left to the discretion of the governors of the Church to be observed as any other occasion shall be offered, Fulk. annot. Apocalyps. 1. sect. 6. Lastly, we showed Augustine's opinion, in the first part of this question, how he understandeth that saying, Psalm 118. This is the day which the Lord hath made, only of the Sabbath: thereby insinuating, that other holy days either were not instituted of God at all, or else not with the like necessity. THE FOURTH PART, OF THE solemnities of saints. The Papists. error 69 1. THey hold that holy days may be dedicated unto Saints, for their honour and worship: as Christ promised that the charitable act of Marie Magdalene wrought upon him should be recorded and remembered, Matth. 26. vers. 13. Hereby we learn that the good works of Saints may be recorded to the honour of Saints in the Church, whereof arise their commemorations and holy days, Rhemist. annot. Matth. 25. sect. 1. The Protestants. 1. THe good works of Saints may be remembered to the honour of God, without their holy days and commemorations: Christ instituted no holy day of Mary Magdalene, nor commanded an image of her fact to be made, but a memory of her in preaching the Gospel, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, we grant, that Christian solemnities may be kept, as things indifferent, which the Church may retain or abrogate as it shall seem best for edification, not observed of necessity as a part of the worship of God, nor consecrate to the honour of Saints; seeing all divine worship is wholly to be reserved to God, not to be given to any other: For times and seasons, the scripture saith, the Lord hath put only in his own power: Cont. Faustum lib. 2. cap. 21. therefore he is only to have the honour of them, Act. 1.7. Thirdly, what honour is due unto Saints Augustine showeth: Colimus martyres eo cultu dilectionis, & societatis, quo & in hac vita coluntur sancti homines Dei. We do honour Martyrs, with the service of love and fellowship, as holy men are honoured in this life. But it is not lawful to consecrate times and days to holy men living, therefore neither to Saints departed: for one and the same kind of honour is due to them both. The Papists. error 70 2. THey maintain, that there may be holy days and commemorations of all Saints, as Christ promiseth there should be of Mary Magdalene, Rhemist. Matth. 25. sect. 1. The Protestants. THis is another principal fault, which we find & complain of in their holy days: that they have pestered the Church with such a number of Saints and Saints days. First, as we have partly showed before, they appointed a several Saint almost for every purpose, as here we have set it down: Saint Leonard for captives. Ex Tilemann. loc. 28. Saint Rochus for the pestilence. Saint George for war. Saint Anna giveth riches. Saint Nicholas and Christopher for the sea. Saint Apollonia for the toothache. Saint Otilia for the eyes. Saint Margaret for women in travel. Saint Laurence keepeth from the fire. Saint Catherine giveth wit & learning. Saint john against poison. Saint Quirine for the fistula. Saint Protasius and Geruasius, help to bewray theft. And thus is it true of them, as jeremy complained of the Idolatrous Israelites: that their gods were after the number of their cities, jerem. 2.28. In like manner also have they multiplied their Saints days: for beside the festivals of Christ, the holy Ghost, and of the Apostles, they have added these beside. Saint George his day. Corpus Christi. Assumption of Mary. Nativity of Mary. Conception of Mary. The birth days of the Apostles. Magdalen's. Laurence. The Dedication feast. Tilemann. loc. 26. Martin. their holy days. Nicholas. their holy days. Catherine. their holy days. Anne. their holy days. Beside in the Diocese of Salisburge, fifteen festivals of Saint Rubert, with many more: whereof some of them are blasphemous, as to keep the Conception of Mary, in remembrance that she was conceived without sin: some of them fabulous and forged; as the Assumption of Mary, in memory of her Assumption in body to heaven, which is a mere fable. But all the rest are idolatrous and superstitious, ordained for the honour and worship of creatures. And thus have they cumbered the people of God with their infinite observations: So that the Lord saith to them, concerning their feasts, as unto the Israelites: They are a burden unto me, I am weary to bear them, Isai. 1.14. In Augustine's time, or who else it was that made those Sermons, when there were nothing so many festivals, as now among Papists, yet more than needed, he writeth thus in a sermon upon a festival: Laetus sum hodierno die propter tantam festivitatem: sed aliquantulum tristis, De divers. serm. 47. quia non video tantum populum congregatum, quantus congregari debuit. I am glad to day, because of this festival day: and somewhat grieved withal, that the people resort not in such frequency, as they should. We may see by this, that even then the people began to wax weary of their many holy days. The Papists. THey enjoin sanctification and necessary keeping of all their festivities and holy days: and so make no difference between the observation of error 71 holy days appointed of GOD, and others ordained of men, requiring the like strictness in keeping of them all, Rhemist. Annot. Galat. 4. sect. 5. The Protestants. THere are no days necessary to be kept, but those that are of the Lords appointment: the rest, being void of superstition, may be celebrated as indifferent: and therefore not to be commanded with the like strictness, as is the Lords day. There is greater liberty upon holy days for bodily labour, then upon the Sabbath: for bodily rest upon the seventh day is commanded of GOD: bodily labour upon all other days permitted, and may without offence of conscience be used, when it is not by the lawful authority of the governors of the Church upon just occasion restrained, as during the time of public prayers and fasts, hearing of the word, and such like. The rest of the Sabbath, so far as it helpeth our preparation and fitness to spiritual exercises, and is a part of sanctifying the Lords day, bindeth simply in conscience, because it is the commandment of GOD: but the rest upon holy days doth not in itself bind us, no otherwise then by reason of offence, that may arise by our contempt of the constitutions of the Church. We find that Simon Islip, Archbishop of Canturburie, directed his letters patents to all Parsons and Vicars, wherein he straightly charged them and their parishioners under pain of excommunication, not to abstain from bodily labour upon certain Saints days, which before were wont to be hallowed and consecrated to unthrifty idleness, Fox. pag. 393. Ergo, by their own judgement, all the festivities of their Church are not to be kept alike. Augustine maketh three degrees of festival days: in the first and highest degree he placeth the lords day: Quomodo Maria virgo, matter domini, principatum tenet inter omnes mulieres, ita inter caeteros dies, haec omnium dierum matter est. As amongst women, the Virgin Marie, the mother of our Lord is the chief, so this day is the mother and chief of all other days, speaking of the Sabbath of Christians, de tempore serm. 36. In the next place or degree he putteth the festivals of Christ, and the holy Ghost, as the commemorations of his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension: as in his sermon upon the Ascension day he thus saith, Conditoris basilica huius S. Leontij hodiè depositio est: sed dignetur obscurari stella à sole. To day we have the commemoration of the deposition or sepulture of Saint Leontius the founder of this Church: But let not the star think much to be obscured of the Sun. So in the third rank he counteth the commemorations of holy men, which unto the festivities of Christ were but as the Star to the Sun. We will add a fourth place or degree, distinguishing between the commemorations of the holy Apostles, and other superstitious and popish Saints days, which our Church hath worthily thrust out at the doors. AN APPENDIX TO THIS part of the vigiles and night watches annexed to festival days. The Papists. 1. THey were wont upon saints eves to give themselves to fasting, and watching. But their night vigiles or watches they do not now so error 72 strictly observe, because of the great abuses which did grow thereupon, Bellarm. cap. 17. Yet they have not altogether left them, for they have their Nocturnes or midnight matins, and their prime hours in the morning. Rhemist. annot. Act. 10. sect. 6. The Protestants. THe Christians in time of persecution had their antelucanos hymnos, their early and timely songs and hymns: they met together to worship God, before the Sun rise, because they could not safely, neither were suffered to assemble in the day time. But that is no reason, why now the Church should use vigiles or nocturnes, seeing we now have free exercise of religion in the day time: no more than Paul's example is to be urged, that prayed by the rivers side with the people, and there preached unto them, because in Idolatrous cities they could have no places of meeting. That therefore we now ought to do the like, having Churches and Oratories to assemble in, Augustine, if the sermon be his, thus witnesseth: jubente Ambrosio cessabant vigiliae Mediolani, quia cum vigilabant per noctem, ad ecclesiam, Ad fratres in eremo. serm. ludendo & chorizando conveniebant. At Milan by Ambroses' commandment, the vigiles ceased, because the people, when they watched, did come by night, dancing, and sporting and playing, to the Church. The Papists. 2. THey have also another superstitious custom, to set up wax candles, and error 73 taper light before Images, and upon the altar, to carry them about in procession, and even at midday, and high noon: And Bellarmine would authorize this custom by the continual burning of the lamps day and night, as he saith, in the tabernacle amongst the jews. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we say of this, as we did of the vigiles of the Church before: that Christians in those days in their night assemblies used candle light: but it followeth not, that the vigiles being now left, we should burn candles at noon day: and that this was their custom, to burn their lamps only in the night, Augustine showeth, where he speaketh of those that did vow ceram ad luminaria noctis, De tempore Serm. 7. wax candles for the lights of the Church in the night. Secondly, it is utterly untrue, that the lamps in the Tabernacle burned all day: the contrary is proved, that they were lighted in the evening, and so burned all night, for those that kept the watch in the Temple, 2. Chron. 13.11. and that in the morning again they were put out, 1. Sam. cap. 3. vers. 3. The Priest shall set the lamps on fire, inter duas vesperas, between the two twilights, that is, the evening and morning, Exod. 30.8. And he shall dress them to burn from the evening to the morning, Leuitic. 24.3. That therefore which the jesuite made for an argument for himself, we will urge against him: that seeing the lamps amongst the jews, who abounded in types and ceremonies, were burnt only in the night, and not upon the day; it is shame for those that would be counted Christians, in superstitious customs, to exceed and go beyond them. THE FIFT PART, OF LENT and Imber days. The Papists. 1. THey hold, that the holy time of Lent, (as they do fond call it, as error 74 though any time in their sense were more holy than another) is an Apostolic tradition, warranted by the example of Moses, Elias, and our Saviour Christ, that fasted 40. days, Rhemist. Matth. 4▪ sect. 2. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, that fasting of our Saviour Christ, and the holy Prophets, was miraculous, and no more to be imitated then Christ's walking upon the Sea, In. Psal. 90. praefat. or raising of the dead, as Augustine saith, Non tibi dicit, Non eris discipulus meus, he saith not, Thou shalt not be my Disciple, unless thou walk upon the sea, or raise the dead: but learn of me, because I am humble and meek. Yet if any of them can fast so many days, as they did, without eating any thing at all, we give them good leave. Secondly, that it was not an Apostolic tradition, it appeareth, because it was not uniformally kept of the Church, Euseb. lib. 5 cap. 26. a long time after them: For as Irenaeus witnesseth, some fasted one day, some two days, some forty hours day and night. But if it had been necessarily enjoined and prescribed by the Apostles, such variety of custom could not have sprung up, at the least not have been suffered in the Church. Thirdly, Epiphanius saith, that the Wednesdays fast was an Apostolic tradition, Epiphan. Heres. 75. and to observe the feast of the six days of Easter, with bread, salt, and water: which observations, are not kept amongst the Papists themselves, yet have they as good testimony of antiquity to be Apostolic traditions, as the Lent fast. Fourthly, in Augustine's time there was no necessary enforcement for every man to keep Lent: Si aliquis, saith he, ieiunare non potest, eleemosyna sine jeiunio bona est. If any man be not able to fast, Serm. de temp. 62. alms without fasting is good and profitable. Wherefore seeing the Lent fast was then voluntary, it is evident that it was not an Apostolic prescription, which should have bound all men necessarily. The Papists. 2. A Second abuse in their fasting, is to appoint prescript times, necessarily error 75 to fast in, as in Lent, on Friday, Saturday, & upon Imber days, which are prescribed for the four solemn times of giving orders: And this also they say, is an Apostolic tradition, Acts. 13.3. They fasted & prayed, and laid their hands upon them, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. 1. FOr prayer and fasting to be used at such times as Ministers are ordained, we doubt not but it is an Apostolic tradition, because we find it written in the Acts of the Apostles: But it was fasting from all meat and drink, which the Apostles used, not abstinence from flesh only, as upon your Imber days. Neither do you observe those days of fast for any such purpose: For your Imber days are kept amongst you, though there be no orders given in the whole dioces. 2. Prescript and set times of civil abstinence from some meats, for the benefit of the common wealth, as your Lent and Imber days, are still retained in England, and no otherwise, we condemn not: But to appoint ordinary times of necessary and Religious fasting, without special cause, was of the ancient Church accounted heresy in Montanus. This also was the practice of the Church of God in the old Testament, Euseb. lib. 5 cap. 18. upon special occasion, not at set, and ordinary times, to enjoin public fasting, as the prophet sayeth, Blow the Trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, joel 2.15. which showeth that their public fasts were not usual & ordinary, but especially sanctified, and solemnly proclaimed. As for the fixed and set fasting days in the week, in Augustine's time, only the Churches of Rome kept the saturdays Fast, all the East Churches, and many of the West observed it not: And whereas some alleged, that Peter fasted upon Saturday, being the next day, which was the lords day, to encounter with Simon Magus, Augustine saith, it was opinio plurimorum, the opinion of many, quam tamen falsam esse perhibent plerique Romani: yet many of the Romans hold it but for a fable. And so he generally concludeth, concerning prescript days of fasting. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum: Upon what days we ought to fast, upon what days not, I find it not defined by any precept given by our Lord or any of the Apostles. Epistol. 86. The Papists. error 76 3. A Third abuse in popish fasting, is the difference that they make between meats and drinks: as the forbidding of flesh-eating upon fasting days for more holiness, and the eating of eggs, butter, & cheese in Lent: as it was decreed at Lucerna in Helvetia, Fox. p. 867. Anno. 1524. Abstinence also from some meats upon certain days for religion, is warranted by the Rhemist: as God prohibited Adam the eating of some fruits in Paradise for obedience, and in the law for signification, annot. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 6. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, now Antichrist showeth himself in his colours, making it as lawful for him, to forbid the use of some meats for religion, now under the Gospel, when God hath made them all lawful and free, as God himself might forbid the use of some, for obedience in Paradise or signification in the Law. Secondly, S. Paul calleth it the doctrine of devils, to command to abstain from meats, 1. Timoth. 4.3. Again, let no man condemn you in meat and drink. Colos. 2.16. The Rhemist. answer, that the Apostle speaketh in the first place against those heretics, that condemned meats as evil by creation, such were the Manichees, and in the second, against the judaical observation of meats. But they only prohibit the use of some meats for the chastising of the body. Ans. First, not only the Manichees and other heretics preferred some meats before other, as more holy, but even the Papists also in the prescript times of their fasts, do command to abstain from meats for piety and religion: And therefore they are counted most holy amongst them that never eat flesh. And Durand testifieth, that fish in interdict days, is rather used than flesh, because flesh and not fish was accursed in the days of Noah. Durand. lib. 6. cap. de alijs ieiunijs. Yea they command abstinence from meats under pain of damnation: what is this else, but with the old heretics to condemn the creatures of God themselves? Secondly, the popish prohibition of meats, is more superstitious, then was the jews: For they prohibited such meats, as by the law were counted unclean, as to eat beasts that died alone, or were torn with beasts, or strangled, or touched any unclean beast, as likewise they enjoined penance to them, that did eat or drink, where a dog or cat had lapped, or a mouse had been drowned and such like, Fulk. annot. 1. Timoth. 4 sect. 6. I pray you how far are they now from the superstition of the jews? Nay they go beyond them: for the legal difference of meats for signification, was instituted of God for those times. But this superstitious distinction of meats under the Gospel, which giveth us the free use of all the creatures of God, which are sanctified by the word and prayer, 1. Timoth. 4.5. is brought in by Antichrist, who is an enemy unto God. 3 Neither do they abstain from flesh and other meats for chastising of the flesh: for they permit the use of all other meats upon their fasting days, that may provoke lust, flesh only excepted, as the eating of spices, and other dainty and delicate confections, the drinking of wine, and all kind of fish. Even like as Augustine reporteth of the Manichees, that would drink no wine, nor eat flesh: De morib. Manich. 2. cap. 13. but in stead of wine they had Pomorum nonnullorum expressos succus vini speciem satis imitantes, atque id etiam suavitate vincentes: the sweet liquor of pleasant fruits like to wine in colour, but excelling it in sweetness: and for flesh they had their strange & exquisite fruits, with great variety of dishes, seasoned and strawed with pepper. This was the Manichees fast: and this is the popish custom in their fastings at this day. Again, if they forbore some meats for chastisement of the body, why might it not be as lawful to eat butter, and eggs, in the time of Lent, as upon other fasting days: but that they make difference of the times, as one being holier than an other, and so also a difference of meats, some being more agreeable to holy times, than other? Wherefore to conclude this point: Civil abstinence from flesh, as for policy's sake, and the better maintenance of the common wealth, that there should be a vent for fish, as well as for flesh, and that every man might live of his trade and calling: as also for the health of the body, to abstain from hurtful meats: as likewise to keep a temperate and sober diet, and to take heed of surfeiting and drunkenness: These kinds of abstinence, in making difference of meats, we mislike not: but for piety or religions sake to distinguish them, it is to too great superstition. The Papists. FOurthly, their religious kind of fasting they hold not to be a general error 77 abstinence from all meats and drinks, but only from some certain kinds, as from flesh, and wine, as Timothy refrained from drinking of wine, and in stead thereof used water, 1. Timothy 5. verse 23. Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, for chastising of the body, it is lawful to abstain either wholly for a time, or in respect of the quantity or quality of the meats, which may more provoke carnal lusts, not in the prohibition of the whole kind, as the Papists do of all flesh, be it never so gross or small in quantity. Likewise it is lawful for chastising of a man's body to abstain from any kind, as of wine, fruits, spices, flesh, so that the use of them be not forbidden, as though in the very abstinence there were religion, Fulk. ibid. 2 But the true and properly religious fast of Christians, is a general abstinence from all meats and drinks, during the time of such fasting: Esther. 4.16. Nehemiah. 9.4. Where the manner of their fast is described: how the law was read unto them four times in the day, and as oft did they worship the Lord and confess their sins. It was the custom of the Church also in Augustine's time, in the days of fast, not to abstain only from flesh, or some certain kind of meat, as the Papists use, but altogether to continue fasting till the eeuen. Rogo vos (fratres) (saith he) ut in isto sacratissimo tempore, exceptis dieb. dominicis nullus prandere praesumat: De tempor. serm. 62. I pray you, brethren, that in this holy time, none of you presume to dine at all, except it be upon the Lords days. Ergo, they that will keep a true religious fast, if they are able, ought for the time wholly to abstain. The Papists. error 78 FIftly, they err, in affirming fasting to be a meritorious work, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 15. vers. 32. Anna, Toby, judith, Esther, served and pleased God by fasting, Annot. Math. 15. sect. 3. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we doubt not, but that fasting is a work acceptable to God, being referred to the right end, as to chastise and humble the body, 1. Corinthians. 9.27. and to make our prayers more fervent, 1. Corinthians. 7.5. But otherwise there is no holiness or virtue in fasting of itself, neither is it by the work wrought of any merit or worthiness: For our prayers, which are a more principal work, then fasting is, yet of themselves by any worthiness in them, are not regarded of God: for Solomon saith, When thou hearest, have mercy, 1. King. 8.30. It is of the Lords mercy, that our prayers are heard, not of any worthiness in them. Augustine saith very well, Si volumus bene ieiunare à cibis, ante omnia ieiunemus & à vitijs. De tempor. serm. 64. Quid prodest, pallidum esse ieiunijs, si odio & invidia livescas? What doth it help to fast from meat, if we fast not from sin? What availeth it to be pale and wan with fasting, if thou frettest with hatred and envy? Ergo, the external or outward act of fasting of itself is little or nothing worth. The Papists. error 79 SIxtly, and lastly, they grievously offend in their fastings, in laying so strait and hard a yoke upon men's shoulders, as charging them under pain of damnation to keep their fasting days, making it deadly sin, yea, heresy to transgress them: as one Laurence Staple was troubled and persecuted, anno. 1531. because in Lent having no fish, he did eat eggs, Fox. pag. 1043. butter, and cheese: nay, they were so cruel, that hardly they suffered women in childbed to have flesh in their houses: As anno. 1532. two young Girls were constrained to abjure, pag. 1048. because they were found upon Saint Peter's even eating broth made of mutton, their mother lying in childbed. How was poor Frebarne tossed too and fro, pag. 1184. and brought into great danger, because a pig was found in his house in Lent time, for the which his wife longed? The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, no positive law, not grounded upon scripture, can so bind any person, that in the breaking of such he shall sin deadly: Fox. pag. 1110. And of this sort is the fast of Lent and other days for religion, which were ordained without authority of scripture: Lambert ad articul. 17. And seeing the rest of the Sabbath, being the commandment of GOD, might yet upon necessary cause be broken, as we have showed; how much greater liberty ought the people to have had in the observation of those days, which were only enjoined by men? for who seethe not, that the rest in the Lord's day being Gods own appointment ought more surely to bind, then fasting upon forbidden days, enforced by men? yet was it counted an heinous sin to eat flesh upon a day interdict, and a small offence, or none, to violate the rest of the Sabbath. 2 Saint Paul could see no such necessity of fasting and abstinence, when he willeth Timothy to drink wine, and no longer water, for his infirmities sake, 1. Timoth. 5.23. But if there were religion in fasting and abstinence, it ought not to be intermitted for the bodily health: for the less principal is to give place to the greater. In Augustine's time also there was no such necessity: Qui ieiunare non praevalet, in domo sua praeparet, quod accipiat: He that is not able to fast, let him prepare in his house for his own eating. And again, Si possibilitas non fuerit ieiunandi, sufficit eleemosyna sine jeiunio. Serm. de tempor. 62. If a man have not possibility to fast, in stead of fasting let him give alms. What is become now of your Lent and Imber fasts, which you prescribe as necessary to be kept of all? THE NINTH QUESTION, CONcerning the Virgin Marie. THis question standeth of many parts: 1. Whether the B. Virgin Marie were conceived without sin. Secondly, whether she vowed Virginity before the Angel was sent unto her. Thirdly, of the assumption of her body into heaven. Fourthly, of the dignity and pre-eminence that she hath (as they affirm) above all other Saints, yea, and the Angels to. Fiftly, of the merits of the virgin Marie and of the ave Maria. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Virgin Marie were void of original and actual sin. The Papists. error 80 1 ALL men are borne in sin, Christ only excepted, and his mother for his honour: Rhemist. Rom. 5. sect. 9 Answ. it is no more dishonour for Christ to be borne of a sinner, then to have taken his flesh, and lineally descended, according to his humanity, of Thamar that committed incest with juda and Rahab which was an harlot: Math. 1.3.5. Secondly, it maketh more for the honour of God that Christ was borne without sin of a woman which was a sinner, and more setteth forth his power, than otherwise, lest he should be thought to have derived his purity from his mother. 2 They hold, that there was no actual sin in the Virgin Marie, no not the jest and smallest sins, which they call venial, Rhemist. 1. john. 1. sect. 5. She was especially protected, and preserved from sinning by the grace of God. Ans. That God is able clearly to rid his children from sin, & to preserve them from falling thereinto, we deny not: but, seeing you have no scripture for this privilege, that should be bestowed only upon Marie, to be free from sin: but rather the contrary is proved out of scripture, That all have sinned, Rom. 3.23. it is too rash and bold 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: unless therefore you can show some especial warrant out of God's word, for Mary's freedom, by your reason, all the children of God shall be freed from sin as well as Marie, because God is able to do it. The Protestants. THat the Virgin Marie was both conceived in sin, and was also subject to actual sins in her life, as other of the children of God, thus out of the scripture we do declare it. 1 How else can the word of God be true, that saith, All have sinned, Rom. 3.23. &. 5.12. They will answer, that Marie had an especial privilege: then let them show it out of the word of God, and we will believe: otherwise the general conclusion must stand, that all have sinned. Again, Marie herself in her song, calleth Christ her Saviour: Luk. 1.47. Ergo, she was a sinner: for how else could she be saved from her sins which she had not? If they answer as they do, Fox. p. 801. that Christ was her Saviour only, because he preserved her from sin: We do thus reply. First, that a Saviour in scripture is defined to be he that saveth the people from their sins, Math. 1.21. not that preserveth only. Secondly, if Marie were free from original sin, as they say she was, she needed not a Saviour to keep her from sin, for she might have preserved herself. Arg. 2 Marie died, Ergo, she was a sinner: for sin brought death into the world, Rom. 1.5. If she had had no sin, she had not died. Christ indeed, though he were no sinner, yet he bore our sins, and therefore died for us. Christ checked and rebuked his mother, john. 2.4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Ergo, it seemeth, she was not without fault. Rhemist. answer: It was rather a doctrine to others, to teach them not to do any thing for respect of kindred, against reason, than a reprehension to Mary. We reply: But I pray you, how could the Apostles learn to beware of that fault, if it had been no fault in Marie? How could they be admonished in her, if she were not first herself admonished? And the manner of speech showeth, it was a rebuke, Christ saluting her by no other name, then if he had spoken to any other woman. Argum. 3. The Papists themselves are in a stagger, and dare not constantly affirm, that Marie was conceived without sin, but put in this clause (as many godly devout men judge) Rhemist. Rom. 5. sect. 9 And Bellarmine saith, in maiori part Ecclesiae piè credi, that the greater part of the Church doth so godly believe, yet he dare not determine upon it himself, de cult. sanctor. lib. 3. cap. 16. But why are they afraid to hold it as an undoubted truth, seeing Pope Sixtus hath clearly determined that it was so, forbidding the Dominick Friars to preach the contrary, Fox. p 800. and hereupon erected a new holy day of her conception? Here than they are driven to a great strait: for either they must absolutely hold, that she was not conceived in sin, against the Master of sentences, and Thom. Aquinas, with other schoolmen, or else hold the contrary, and so confess the Pope to have been in error. Augustine saith, beatior Maria percipiendo fidem Christi, quàm concipiendo carnem Christi: Materna propinquitas nihil Mariae profuisset, nisi foeliciùs Christum cord quàm carne gestasset. De sanct. virginit. cap. 4. Marry was more happy in perceiving the faith of Christ, then in conceiving 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, than she did in her womb. But what need had Marie to believe in Christ, if she had been pure from her nativity, and had no sins to be forgiven her? Augustine yet more plainly saith, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae: Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, & caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. Marry died being borne of Adam, In Psal. 34. conci. 2. because of the sin of Adam: Adam died because of his own sin: Christ died in the flesh to take away our sins: Ergo, Marie by his sentence was borne in the sin of Adam. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER Marie vowed Virginity before the Annunciation. The Papists. error 81 THey would gather and conclude so much out of the answer of Marie to the Angel, who told her, she should conceive and bear a son: How can this be (saith she) seeing I know no man? That is, she plainly declareth, she could have no child by knowing a man, because of her vow, for otherwise she needed not have asked such a question, how a woman might have a son promised her, if she had married to have 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 prophesy of Esay, that a virgin should conceive & bring forth a son, and therefore knew very well, that this holy child should be otherwise conceived, then by the knowledge or help of man, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, as also the Angel delivering at once his whole message, and showing what manner of child it should be: even the Son of the most high, who should sit on the throne of David, and of his kingdom there should be no end: that is, that the child should be the Son of God: she straightways conceived that such a holy seed 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 do verily think, and condemn their opinion that hold the contrary: but that she vowed or purposed Virginity, before the message of the Angel was brought unto her, it is rashly without scripture, nay rather against it, affirmed. Argum. 1. The text is plain, that they had a purpose to consummate their marriage: When as Marie was betrothed to joseph, before they came together▪ Math. 1.18. Ergo, there was a meaning to come together, if she had not in the mean time been found to be with child of the holy Ghost: for otherwise, it should seem to have been a mockery on Mary's behalf, to promise marriage to joseph, without any purpose to perform the duty of marriage. But if it were done with both their consents, than mocked they with God, who instituted marriage for some end and purpose, which could not be attained out of marriage: for they should have married neither for avoiding fornication, nor for procreation, which are the two chief ends of marriage: as for the third, which is mutual comfort, it ariseth of the former. Argum. 2. It was not the manner among the jews to vow Virginity, but it was rather a shame and reproach to remain and die a Virgin: and therefore jephthaths daughter lamented her Virginity, judg. 11.38. How then could Marie be induced contrary to the custom of the Church, to vow Virginity? Yea Augustine confesseth as much: Hoc mores Israelitarum recusabant: The manners of the Israelites did not suffer it, de Virginit. cap. 4. though he himself elsewhere, and in the same place seemeth to incline to the contrary opinion. THE THIRD PART, OF THE ASsumption of the Virgin Marie. The Papists. THey report the story of the death and departure of the Virgin Mary, after error 82 this manner▪ At the time of her death after she had lived sixty three years, all the Apostles, being dispersed into divers nations, were miraculously brought together to jerusalem, to solemnize her funeral. They buried her in Gethsemani: and for three days together the Angels were heard to sing melodious songs: At three days end also Saint Thomas came; who being desirous to see her body, and not finding it in the grave, they thereupon assuredly deemed that her body was assumpted into heaven, Rhemist. Act. 1. vers. 14. Argum. 1. It is best agreeable to the privilege of the mother of God, not to see corruption, Rhemist. ibid. Seeing also her son was exempted from corruption, & natura Mariae excipitur, the nature of Marie must be excepted: caro enim jesu est caro Mariae, the flesh of jesus is the flesh of Marie. And seeing Christ came to fulfil the law, which saith, Honour thy parents: it is very like, eum in morte speciali gratia eam honorasse, that he did honour her by special grace in her death. These reasons and other are to be read in a forged book amongst Augustine's works, bearing title, De assumptione Mariae. Answ. First, there is no credit to be given to the forged writings which pass under the name of Saint Denis, and Athanasius, out of whom they do report the assumption of Marie, nay their own lesson, which they read upon the Assumption day, doth control and confute the other. First, that story saith, that without doubt she was taken up in body. But your lesson leaveth it as uncertain, whether she were raised up in body or not. Secondly, the forged story saith, she was buried in Gethsemani, which was in mount Olivet: your lesson saith, that the place of her burial is in the midst of the valley of jehosaphat, which is between mount Olivet and the City, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, it followeth not, because Christ took flesh of the Virgin, that therefore she should also as well be exempted from corruption: for he took flesh also of David, and other his progenitors, who by the same reason should be made immortal. And if she were privileged by being the mother of Christ, from seeing corruption, why not also from having any sin? for her Son after the flesh saw neither. Thirdly, Christ also both did and might honour his mother as he was man, though so great a privilege be not granted unto her. The reverence, which was to be done to his mother, was in regard of his manhood, and so was he obedient unto them, Luk. 2.51. and so long as he lived in the flesh: and therefore he did care for her even upon the cross, commending her to the disciple whom he loved. But he neither was to honour her as he was God, and therefore not to free her from corruption, which had been a work of his Godhead: and the natural affection and honour due unto parents ceaseth after this life. It were then too gross a conceit, to think that Christ hath such regard now of the virgin Marie in heaven, as he had of her, being his mother, in the days of his flesh: for Christ, as he is not now known after the flesh, 2. Corinth. 5.16. so neither knoweth he any after the flesh. The Protestants. THis uncertain report of the assumption of Mary, with other circumstances thereof, we hold to be a very counterfeit story, and worthy of no credit. Argum. 1. If it were a matter of such weight, as they make it, who have erected a new found holiday of the assumption of Mary, surely the scriptures would not have been silent therein: especially Saint john (as Augustine saith) to whose charge she was committed, would have left somewhat in writing of that matter: for saith he, Nullus fideliùs id narrare potuerit, for no man could more truly and faithfully make relation thereof. De sanct. serm. 35. Argum. 2 That general sentence pronounced upon Adam and all Adam's seed, must needs also take place in the virgin Marie, Thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return, Genes. 3.19. Christ only is excepted, and that by the testimony of the word of God: wherefore, unless this privilege of the virgin could be proved out of scripture, as Christ's is, we must needs hold her subject to that general law of corruption. Augustine saith, Assumptio eius in apocryphas non in catholica reperitur historia: the assumption of Mary is found in an Apocryphal, that is, an obscure and uncertain, not a Catholic or authentical story. THE FOURTH PART OF THE Honour and worship of the Virgin Marie. The Papists. error 83 THey do ascribe unto her a kind of religious honour, more than to any of the Saints beside: For whereas they call the worship of Saints, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, service, the honour of the Virgin, they term, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a higher kind of service, Bellarmin. de Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. They call her, Regina mundi, scala coeli, thronus dei, ianua Paradisi, The Queen of the world, the ladder of heaven; the throne of God, and gate of Paradise: yea they give her jurisdiction over her son, jube natum, command thy son, jure matris impera filio, command thy son by the right of a mother. Coge Deum, compel God to be merciful to sinners, Annot. Fulk. 1.15. Again, they say, she is to be honoured with the feasts of her Nativity, Assumption, and Conception: for the other two, of her Purification, and Annunciation, are not proper to the Virgin, but concern Christ: the one his Conception, the other his Presentation, Rhemist. actor. 1. sect. 7. Argum. She herself prophesieth of all Catholic generations, that they should bless her in keeping her festivities and memorial: but if these festivities of her Conception and Assumption be not kept, she should have none at all: and so be thought worthy of less remembrance, than any other Saint, Galat. 4. sect. 5. Rhemist. The Protestants. 1. WE do not celebrate any festival days in the honour of creatures, neither of the Virgin Mary, nor any other Saint, but only to the honour of God: and therefore the feasts of the Annunciation, and Purification, may much better be received, because they belong and are referred unto Christ, than the other festivities, of the assumption and conception of Mary, the institution whereof was most superstitious: the one for the feigned assumption of her body, which your own writers are uncertain of: the other to maintain the heresy of the franciscans, that she was conceived and borne without sin. As for the memory of the Virgin Mary, it may better be kept, then by such festivities: as our Saviour Christ taught to keep the remembrance of Mary Magdalene, by preaching the Gospel, Math. 26.13. Fulk. annot. Act. 1.7. And if they only are Catholic generations, that call her blessed in keeping these festivities in her memorial: then there were no Catholic generations for many hundred years after, and so do you condemn the age of the Apostles: for neither then, nor many years after were these superstitious festivities heard of. But Mary saith in her song, From henceforth, even from this time forward, shall all generations call me blessed: so that, if her blessedness had consisted in the memory of those days, they should immediately have been kept, especially the day of her nativity, Fulk. Galath. 4. sect. 5. 2. We do allow all praise given unto the Virgin, without the dishonour of God and her Son and Saviour Christ: we do acknowledge the honour that God vouchsafed her, not to be a meritorious or principal efficient cause of our redemption, but only an holy vessel, and instrumental cause of the conception and birth of Christ, by whose only merit and worthiness our redemption is perfited, as by a proper and principal, and only meritorious efficient cause thereof. And therefore, those are blasphemous titles which are given unto her, to call her the ladder of Heaven, and gate of Paradise, and such like: and so in a manner to make her our redeemer. Augustine saith, She was more happy, in that she conceived the faith of Christ, then in conceiving the flesh of Christ. De sancta virgine cap. 3. If then these titles be unmeet for her, in respect that she received the faith of Christ, which is common to all the children of God, then are they more unfit, in that she conceived the flesh of Christ. 3. It is great presumption to think that the Virgin Mary may command her son in heaven: seeing she had no authority to command him upon earth, in any thing pertaining to his office, joh. 2.4. And now likewise that carnal respect of children to their parents ceaseth in the kingdom of God. As for that superiority & higher kind of honour which she hath above all the Saints beside, we find no warrant out of scripture. She is respected now in heaven, not as she bore the flesh of Christ, but as she lived by faith in Christ: she also rejoiced in God her Saviour. The scripture therefore maketh one condition and estate of all that shall be saved: and saith generally of all, of others as well as the Virgin Christ's mother, That they shall be as the angels in heaven, Matth. 22.30. Yea, our Saviour showeth, that Whosoever doth the will of God, is his sister, brother and mother, Math. 12.50. By the which we learn, that other the faithful servants of GOD may by their faith in Christ, be as well accepted of God, as if they had borne Christ in the flesh. Where then is that high dignity, which she hath, as the mother of Christ, above all Saints? Augustine saith: Tu concinis sine fine choris coniuncta, Angelis & Archangelis sociata: Thou (O Virgin) dost rejoice being joined unto the heavenly choir, Serm. 35. de assumpt. Mariae. being associated to Angels and Archangels. He maketh her not Lady or Queen of heaven, but only a fellow companion of the Saints and Angels. AN APPENDIX OR FIFT PART OF THE Merits of the Virgin, and of the ave Maria. The Papists. 1. THey do teach and hold, that she only amongst all women deserved to error 84 bear the redeemer of the world, and so by her merits obtained that favour to be the mother of Christ. Argum. The Angel saluteth her, & calleth her, Full of grace, which showeth the prerogative that she had above other women, and the worthiness that was in her, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 12.15. The Protestants. Ans. 1. We acknowledge that herein she was blessed above all other women, in that she was chosen to be the mother of our Saviour, and that she was endued fully with the graces of the holy Ghost: but those graces she had not of herself, but of the free gift of God, without her merits. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth freely beloved, not full of grace, as it is likewise taken, Ephes. 1.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He hath made us accepted in his beloved Son. 3. She herself confesseth herself in her song, to be of a low degree, poor in spirit, and hungry, whom God in mercy looked upon, Luk. 1.50. whereas God sent away the proud and rich: as the proud Pharisie that thought himself rich of good works, obtained nothing of God, Luk. 18. Wherefore if she had stood upon her own deserts, she had made herself rich, not poor: neither should she have magnified the mercy of God, but his justice: for when a reward is given according to desert, it is of his justice, and not mercy. Augustine thus commenteth upon the words of her song, Magnificet animae mea Dominum, & recordetur, quomodo nullis suis praecedentibus meritis, De sancta▪ virginit. serm. 35. sed sola dei bonitate sit ab iniquitate saluata: Let my soul praise the Lord; and remember, how that not by any merits going before, but through the only gracious goodness of God, it is delivered from sin: Ergo, Mary not saved by her merits, nor consequently the mother of Christ, by her merits, but only by the mere favour of God. The Papists. 2. THey much commend the often using of the ave Mary, which is done (say error 85 they) to the honour of Christ and our Lady. Argum. They be the very sum and abridgement of the whole Gospel: and therefore to be used, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 11. The Protestants. 1. You do shamefully abuse those words, in making a prayer of them, which was but a form of salutation used by the Angel: neither can you say them in that sense they were uttered in by the Angel. Also you offend in the vain repetition of them upon your beads, as the heathen did, Math. 6.7. and in committing idolatry, in the invocating of the Virgin, and praying unto her in these words: who is a creature and not a God to be called upon. 2. What mystery soever be contained in these words, yet the people understand nothing at all. And though we deny not but that the words are holy and mystical, yet it followeth not that they should be used for a prayer. 3. What great account they make of the ave Mary, it may appear by this: that they think they may alter and change it, and add to it at their pleasure: as by Pope Sixtus the 4. there was a clause more added unto the common ave Mary, in this manner: Hail Marry full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Fox. p. 800. blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb jesus Christ, and blessed is Anna thy mother, of whom thy virgins flesh hath proceeded without blot of original sin. What a fearful thing is this, that they should thus dare to add unto the scriptures? How can they now escape that judgement that is threatened against all those that do add, or take aught to or from the word of God? Apocal. 22.18. Thus far of such questions and controversies, as concern the kingdom of Christ, which is his Church: of the which we have now entreated at large: first in general of the whole, and then of the several parts and members thereof in order. Now follow those controversies, which belong unto the Priesthood of Christ, the third excellent and glorious office of our Saviour: which his Priesthood is partly seen in his intercession and mediation for us, partly in his sacrifice, where we are to handle the great and weighty controversies of the Sacraments, by the which the sacrifice of his death is applied unto us. THE TENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE INTERCESSION AND MEDIAtion of Christ, whether he be only our Mediator and Intercessor. The Papists. THey seem in these very words to confess, that Christ is the only singular error 86 advocate and patron of mankind, that by himself alone, and by his own merits procureth all grace and mercy, none ask or obtaining either grace in this life, or glory in the next, but by him. But this letteth not, but that there may be other inferior mediators, though not in that singular sense, Rhemist. annot. 1. Timoth. 2. sect. 4. Argum. Christ is the only Saviour and Redeemer of the world, yet the name of Saviour and Redeemer is given to men in the scriptures, as jud. 3.9. Othniel is called a Saviour, Act. 7.35. Moses a Deliverer or Redeemer: and all this without derogation to him, that in more excellent manner is the only Saviour of the world: Ergo, there may be also many mediators, in an inferior degree to that singular mediator, to offer up our prayers, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1. If Christ be sufficient to procure all grace and mercy unto us, what need then the mediation or invocation of Saints? for we must either doubt of his power, in joining other helpers with him, or make question of his good will and readiness to help us, in making other mediators unto him. 2. They make other mediators and intercessors beside Christ, even in that high and singular degree: for not only Christ by their doctrine, by his merits procureth grace, but other Saints also by their merits are our mediators: as it is plain to see in that popish prayer, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, etc. By the blood of Thomas, which for thee he did spend, make us, Christ, to climb, whither Thomas did ascend. In this blasphemous prayer and a thousand such, they pray only to Christ as God, not as mediator, men departed, and many of them no Saints, they make their only mediators by their own proper merits. See Fulk. ibid. Again, their Saints are not only intercessors for grace, but conferrers of grace and help, which is the highest degree of mediation. They appoint several patrons amongst the Saints for all purposes: S. Apollonia for the toothache: Saint Rook for the pestilence: Saint Petronill for the ague: Saint Gregory for Scholars: Saint Morris for Soldiers: Saint Luke for Painters: Saint Crispin for Shoemakers: Saint Nicholas for the sea: Saint jodocus for corn: Saint Vrbane for wine. And thus do they not only (as they bear us in hand) pray for these graces and blessings, but they have power themselves to bestow them. Ans. 3. Concerning the name and title of Saviour and Redeemer, we answer: first, men are called in the Scripture, Deliverers and saviours, in respect of some temporal deliverance, not of the spiritual or eternal redemption, which belongeth only to Christ: but you make your Saints mediators of eternal redemption. Secondly, they whom the Scripture calleth Redeemers and saviours, were appointed by God for such temporal deliverance: but you cannot show the like appointment for Saints to be mediators of eternal salvation, though in an inferior degree to Christ. Thirdly, seeing the name of God and Christ is given to men in the scriptures, as to Princes and Prophets: why may you not as well say, that there may be many Gods and Christ's properly, though in an inferior degree to him which is only God and Christ, as to appoint other inferior Redeemers, saviours and Mediators? The Protestants. WE acknowledge but one only Mediator as well of intercession as redemption, even jesus Christ our Lord: to whom and through whom all our prayers & supplications ought to be made: to him we only pray, as being one God with the Father and the holy Ghost: by him and through him we only pray, as being the only Mediator between God and man. Arg. 1. S. Paul saith, There is one mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ, 1. Tim. 2.5. Hence we do frame this argument: The mediator between God and men, must himself be both God and man: but so is none but Christ: Ergo, he is the only Mediator. Arg. 2. He is only the advocate and mediator for our sins, that is the propitiation for our sins, 1. joh. 2.1. Christ only is the propitiation for our sins: Ergo, the only mediator. Augustine thus writeth upon this place: Si Apostolus ita diceret, etc. If the Apostle had said thus: If any man sin, you have me a mediator with the father, Cont. Parmen. lib. 2. cap. 8. and I do by my prayer obtain pardon for your sins (as Parmenianus in a certain place maketh the Bishop a mediator between the people & God:) Quis sicut Apostolum Christi, & non sicut Antichristum intueretur? Who would behold him as an Apostle of Christ, and not as Antichrist? It is then Antichristian doctrine, in Augustine's judgement, to make any other mediators or intercessors beside Christ. HERE FOLLOW SUCH CONTROVERSIES, as concern the Sacraments of the Church. OF the Sacraments then, we must first entreat in general, and afterward handle them in particular. THE ELEVENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. THis Controversy containeth divers questions: first, of the nature and definition of a Sacrament. Secondly, of the efficacy and virtue of the Sacraments. Thirdly, of the number and order of the Sacraments, the difference and pre-eminence amongst them. They thus follow in their order. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE NATURE and definition of a Sacrament. WE thus define a Sacrament, to be an outward sensible sign, representing an holy, inward, and spiritual grace, instituted of Christ, to be used in that manner he hath appointed, to seal unto us the promises of God, and to assure us of the remission of sins, by the righteousness of faith in Christ, Rom. 4.11. Some things there be in this definition, that are agreed upon between us and our adversaries: as that the Sacraments are outward signs of spiritual and holy graces, and that there must be a conveniency and agreement between the sign and the thing signified: that not every thing may be represented by a Sacrament, but an holy and spiritual grace: that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a divine, not an human authority, Bellar. de Sacram. in gener. lib. 1. cap. 9 The several points then wherein we descent from them, and which they mislike in this definition, are these: First, concerning the authority of instituting a Sacrament, which we affirm to be derived only from Christ, and manifestly to be proved out of the scriptures. Secondly, of the form and manner of celebrating the Sacraments. Thirdly, of the instrumental or ministerial cause, which is the Minister. Fourthly, of the use 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 CAUSE, that is, the author or institutor of a Sacrament. The Papists. THey do willingly grant, that neither the Apostles than had, nor the Church error 87 now hath authority to institute Sacraments: but that this power is only in Christ, and that the Apostles did but declare and deliver that which they received of Christ: yet for the trial of this, they refuse to be judged by the express word of God, but fly unto their traditions, which they call the word of God not written, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. & 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, were instituted without express warrant of scripture: for at that time the new testament was not written, when Christ ordained those mysteries: Ergo, for the other Sacraments we need not the express commandment of scripture, Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First, the traditions of our Saviour given unto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments, were afterward written by the Apostles, and expressly set down in scripture: & therefore we doubt not, but that they were of Christ's institution. But your traditions being not committed to writing, concerning your other forged sacraments, are justly suspected, seeing the Apostles should have as well been charged with all the sacraments, if Christ had instituted them, as with only two. Secondly, how then followeth it, the word of God was sometime unwritten, therefore it is so still? or Christ, who was the author of the word written, might institute sacraments without express scripture: Ergo, the testimony of scripture is not necessary now? The Protestants. WE hold no sacraments to be of Christ's institution, but those only which the scripture testifieth to have been commanded by Christ, as Baptism, Math. 28.19. the Lords Supper, Luk. 23.19. The other, which have no testimony of scripture, were not appointed by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith, That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to every good work, 1. Timoth. 3.17. But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the work of the ministery, if he have not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church? for how can he absolutely execute every part of his office, if he fail in the right use of the sacraments? Ergo, seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect, from thence he receiveth sufficient instruction for the sacraments. Argum. 2. Augustine saith: Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facilimis, etc. Christ hath joined his people together by the sacraments, few in number, easy in observation: such are Baptism, and the partaking of his body and blood: than it followeth: Et si quid aliud in scriptures canonicis commendatur: And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonical scripture, Epistol. 118. Ergo, we must attend upon the scripture and written word of God, if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments. THE SECOND PART, OF THE FORM OF A Sacrament, and the manner of consecration. The Papists. THe Sacrament is not consecrated (say they) by all the words of the institution, error 88 but by a certain form of speech to be used over the elements: as these words to be said over the bread, This is my body: & the like over the wine, This cup is the new testament, etc. And in Baptism these: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. These are the forms of the Sacrament, and very words of consecration, though spoken in a strange tongue, without further invocation of the name of God, or giving of thanks, or without a Sermon, which we require (as they say) as necessary to the essence of a sacrament, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11 sect. 11.15. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament. cap. 19 Argum. S. Paul saith, The cup of blessing which we bless, 1. Corinth. 10.16. The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice, which is nothing else but the consecration thereof, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, we deny not, but that to bless here doth signify to sanctify or consecrate: but that is not done by a magical murmuration of words over the Sacrament, but by the whole action according to Christ's institution, in distributing, receiving, giving of thanks. Secondly▪ as for the words which Christ uttered in the institution, we rehearse them not, as a magical charm to be said over the bread and wine to convert their substance: but to declare what they are made to us by force of Christ's institution, namely, his body and blood. The Protestants. WE do not hold, that it is an essential part of the Sacrament, always to have a sermon before it, as they understand a sermon; which notwithstanding were most convenient, and always to be wished: but this we affirm, that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministered, unless there be a declaration, and showing 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 thankfulness, which is always observed amongst us in the daily celebration and receiving of the Sacrament. Concerning the words of the institution, we also grant, that they are necessarily to be used in the celebration of the Sacrament: but not as the Papists use them: For first, they make them not all of one value, but out of the whole institution, pick out certain consecratory words, as they call them: as, This is my body, This is the cup: whereas the other words, Take ye, eat ye, drink ye, do this in remembrance: do as well belong to the institution, as the other. Secondly, they say, that the words of institution do not serve any thing at all for the instruction of the people, to show them the right use of the Sacrament, but only for benediction and consecration of the elements, Bellarm. cap. 19 Thirdly, they do hold, that only by the pronouncing of those words, the elements are consecrated: whereas by the whole action, and cerebration of the Sacrament, the giving, receiving, invocation, thanksgiving, according to Christ's institution, the consecration is performed upon the elements, Fulk. 1. Corinth. 10. sect. 4. Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed, do help as well to admonish & stir up the people to a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ, as to consecrate & bless the elements, it is manifest: whereas Christ saith, as the words are usually rehearsed, Do this in remembrance of me: and S. Paul saith, That by receiving the sacrament, we do show forth the Lords death, 1. Corinth. 11.26. Ergo the people are by the words pronounced, instructed and admonished, and taught the right use of the sacrament. Argum. 2. that the words of institution do help toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements, we deny not, but not by them alone, but prayer also and thanksgiving, and the whole action beside of receiving. To the consecration or sanctifying of any creature, two things are required: the word of God, and prayer, 1. Timoth. 4.5. Neither the word sanctifieth without prayer, nor prayer without the word. Ergo to the sanctifiyng & consecrating of the sacrament, the bare rehearsal of the institution sufficeth not, without invocation and prayer. Augustine saith, Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fiet Sacramentum. Let the word be joined to the element, and it is become a Sacrament. And in an other place, he showeth 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 uttered, but because it is believed: this is the word of faith, saith the Apostle, which we preach: thus far Augustine tract in Johan. 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange tongue, after the manner of enchanters, that by any secret force given unto them hath power to consecrate: but the understanding, hearing, and believing the institution of Christ, with calling upon the name of God, and thanksgiving before him. AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART, WHETHER THE form of words 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 ways: either substantially, error 89 when the sense is also altered with the words; or accidentally, when the elements or syllables are only changed, but the sense remaineth the same. If there be a change in the substance of the words, the sacrament is imperfect: if the alteration be of the form only of words, and not of the sense, the sacrament is not destroyed: but he sinneth that doth so alter them. Wherefore it is not lawful any way at all to alter or change the form of words. Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1. Argum. It is not lawful to add or take, to or from the words of scripture, much less to change the words appointed to be used in the Sacrament. Bellarm. ibid. Ans. To add 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 sense thereof, cannot be done without great impiety: and such is the manner of all heretics: But to allege Scripture, in keeping still the full sense, though we miss of the words, is not to be counted so heinous a sin: we see the holy Apostles in citing texts of Scripture, do not always bind themselves to the very words, as Act. 7.43. Heb. 10.5. The Apostle saith, A body thou hast given me: In the Psalm we read, Mine ears hast thou opened: diverse words, yet the same sense. Augustine saith very well, they that understand the Scripture, though they keep not always the words, are better than they that read and understand not: De doctri. Christian. lib. 4. cap. 5. Sed utrisque ille melior, qui et cum volet, ea● dicit, et sicut oportet, intelligit: But he is better then both, that both remembreth the words, and keepeth the sense too: yet he also deserveth praise, that beareth the sense in mind, though he cannot the words. The Protestants. NO substantial change (we confess) is to be admitted in the form of Institution, which may alter the sense: neither is any particular man by himself to make any accidental change, and bring in a new form of words, but the public and uniform order of the church must be kept, yea, and the church likewise is bound both to retain the true sense, and, as near as may be, the very words, but where occasion serveth, to make some small accidental change: of the words, the sense being nothing diminished, it is not condemned as an unlawful and sinful act. Argum. 1. The Evangelists report not all the same form of words, which should be uttered by our Saviour, neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them, in the precise and strict form of institution: as by comparing of them together, it may be seen, Mat. 26. ver. 27. Take, eat, this is my body. S. Luke. cap. 22. This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ver. 19 S. Paul. Take, eat, this my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11.24. ver. 28. This is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you. This cup is the new testament in my blood, this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me. If it had been a sin, to have miss in some terms and syllables, no doubt the spirit of God would not have suffered these holy writers to have made the least escape. Is it to be thought a sin in the Church, which in stead of Take ye, eat ye, in the plural number, hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministered particularly in the singular number, to every of the communicants, saying. Take thou, eat thou, drink thou? Wherefore all accidental change of words carrieth not with it a guilt of sin. Cont. Donat. de baptis. li. 6. ca 25 Augustine indeed saith, Certa sunt verba evangelica, etc. The words of the gospel are certain, whereby Baptism is consecrated. Tractat. in johan. 80. But yet he saith else where, In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens: In the word spoken the sound which passeth, is one thing, the virtue or sense of the words which abideth, is an other: It is then the sense of the words, not the sound or syllables, that is certain and permanent. THE THIRD PART, OF THE INSTRUMENTAL cause of the Sacraments, that is, the lawful Minister. SOme things are yielded unto of both sides: First, that no man ought to take upon him to administer the Sacraments, unless he be thereunto lawfully called and ordained by the Church, saving that they make exception of Baptism, which in case of necessity, as they teach, may be given by the hands of lay men or women: but of this matter we shall have fit occasion afterward to consider. Secondly it is agreed, that the efficacy or virtue of the Sacrament, dependeth not of the faith or honesty of the Minister: but a faithful man may receive the sacrament worthily, even at the hands of an unworthy Minister. The Papists. THe point of difference between us, is this: They do teach that the efficacy, error 90 perfection, and being of the Sacrament, doth necessarily depend of the intention of the Minister, so that they hold it to be no sacrament, if the Minister have not, Intentionem faciendi, quod facit ecclesia, A full purpose and intent in ministering the Sacrament, to do that which the Church doth, that is, to consecrate the elements, and to make a Sacrament, Trident. council. sess. 7. canon 11. Bellarm. cap. 27. So that by this rule, if the Minister's intention be not wholly upon the business he hath in hand, it shall be no Sacrament. Argum. If the Minister's intention were not necessary to make a sacrament, when it chanceth that the gospel is read at the table by a Minister, there being both bread and wine set before them, and he in reading saith, This is my body, and This is my blood, straightways all that bread & wine should be consecrate, and become a sacrament, but because his intention is wanting, it is none▪ Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. But what if the Minister should have a fantastical conceit and intent, as he readeth, to consecrate all the bread & wine upon the table, than it should seem by your rule, that it must needs be a sacrament, which were even as absurd a thing as the other? 2. There are other lets & impediments, from having a sacrament at the table, then the intention of the minister being wanting or kept back: for the elements are not consecrated, nor the Sacrament made by the bare pronouncing of the words: but the whole institution ought to be observed: there must be eating, drinking, taking, and doing all in the remembrance of the death of Christ: there must be distributing, receiving, invocation, thanksgiving: the whole action in the sacrament, is the consecration thereof: these things then being wanting, there can be no Sacrament. The Protestants. IF the Sacrament be administered aright according to the institution of Christ, whatsoever the Minister be, howsoever affected, be he never so profane in his hart, without any godly purpose or intention: yet to the worthy receiver it ceaseth not to be a Sacrament, Caluin. in antidote. council. Tridentin. sess. 7. canon 11. Argum. 1. The word of God, with what intention soever it be preached, yet may have his effect, and work faith in the hearer. So Christ be preached (saith S. Paul) whether under pretence, or sincerely, I therein joy, Philip. 1.18. Ergo the Sacraments also may have their efficacy, without the intent of the Minister. argum. Lutheri. Argu. 2. If the effect of the Sacrament consisteth upon the intention of the Minister, than should every man be uncertain whether any thing be wrought in him, or he have received any benefit by the Sacrament, because he knoweth not the intent of another man's hart, and so should he be deprived of the spiritual comfort, which he might reap by the Sacrament, Caluin. Tractat▪ 5. in johan. Augustine saith: Sacramentum Baptismi tam sacrum est, ut nec homicida vel ebrioso ministrante polluatur: The Sacrament of Baptism is so holy, that it cannot, either by a murderer or drunken person ministering it, be defiled. And I pray you, is it not like to be a good intention, that should enter into the hearts of such lewd and wicked men? Therefore without any good intention, even by the hands of such, may the Sacraments be given. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER THE Sacraments be seals of the promises of God. The Papists. error 91 THey utterly deny, that the Sacraments be pledges and seals unto us of the promises of God, or that thereby our faith is nourished and confirmed, and we assured of free remission of sins by the death of Christ: neither that the sacraments were ordained for any such end. Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram. cap. 14. Argum. 1. If the sacraments confirm unto us the promises of God in his word, then must they of necessity be more evident, and better known unto us, then is the word of God: for that which is less known, and not so notorious, cannot persuade us of that, which we have better knowledge of. But such are the Sacraments, which are not so evident, being called mysteries of religion, as are the words of God: Ergo Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It is strange to see, that you should now contend for the evidence, and plainness of Scripture, which you have locked up from the people, with no other pretence, then because they are hard and obscure, and dangerous ro be read of the simple. Secondly, you do not well in comparing the word and the sacraments together: for they cannot be divorced or separated: for the word giveth life to the sacraments, the sacraments again give lively testimony and witness to the truth of the word. But let this be the question, not whether the writing by itself, and the seal by itself are of greatest force: but whether an instrument with a seal be not of greater evidence and strength, then without it: So the word of God, which doth but beat upon the sense of hearing, must of necessity, not in itself, but in respect of us, work more effectually, being sealed by the sacraments, where we receive instruction by two other senses of ours, the sight, and the taste. The Protestants. THat the Sacraments are ordained of God, to be pledges and seals of his promises made unto us in Christ, that as verily as the external elements are applied to the outward man, so our souls spiritually are refreshed with an assured hope of the remission of our sins in Christ, and so the sacraments to be seals only of the righteousness of faith, and not givers or workers of grace in us: it is evident out of the Scripture. Argum. 1. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, as the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.1. Circumcision than was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, that is, that he was justified by faith. Ergo so are all other sacraments. Rhemist. Indeed circumcision was a seal to Abraham, for he was just before, and received this sacrament, as a seal thereof afterward. But it followeth not, that it was so in all: for in Isaac his son, and so consequently in the rest, the Sacrament went before and justice followed. annot. Rom. 4. sect. 8. Ans. 1. The Apostle setteth forth the example of Abraham, to show how all men are justified before God, and what is the use of the sacraments in all men: and therefore it is no extraordinary or exempt case, but the common case of all the faithful, that righteousness (saith the Apostle) might be imputed to them also, Rom. 4. 11. Secondly, although Isaac with many other, were first circumcised, and after justified: yet this is perpetual, they were no more justified by circumcision, than Abraham, who was justified before he was circumcised, but by faith only: and therefore the Sacraments are seals of the justice of faith, whether the justice of faith go before, or follow after. Argum. 2. Augustine saith, In Isaac, qui octavo die circumcisus fuit, praecessit signaculum justitiae fidei, et quoniam patris fidem imitatus est, De Baptis. count Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 24. secuta est in crescente ipsa justitia, cuius signaculum in infant praecesserat. In Isaac, who was circumcised the eight day, the seal of the righteousness of faith went before: and because he did follow his father's faith, as he grew, justice itself followed, the seal whereof went before in his infancy. Ergo circumcision was a seal as well to Isaac as to Abraham, and so consequently to all. THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE efficacy and virtue of the Sacraments. THis question also hath diverse parts: First, whether the Sacraments do give or confer grace by the work wrought. Secondly, of the difference of the Sacraments of the old and new testament. Thirdly, whether the Sacraments of the new law do imprint a sign or character in the soul, that can never be put out. Fourthly, of the necessity of the Sacraments. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE SACRAMENTS of themselves do give or confer grace. The Papists. error 92 THe Sacraments give grace ex opere operato, by the work wrought, that is, by force and virtue of the work and word done and said in the sacrament, Rhemist. Act. 22. sect. 1. So that not faith only justifieth, but the Sacraments also, and other works of religion. Rhemist. Rom. 6. sect. 5. The Sacraments than are immediate instruments and efficient causes of our justification, not mediately, as they nourish and increase our faith, but properly and in themselves: Faith in the receiver giveth no efficacy to the Sacrament, but only taketh away the lets and impediments which might hinder the efficacy of the Sacrament: as the dryness of the wood maketh it to burn the better, yet is it no efficient cause of the burning, which is the fire only, but only a help. Thus they compare the Sacrament working of itself, to fire that burneth, and faith is as the drying of the wood, but a disposing and preparing of the hart. Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 1. Argum. 1. Be baptised and wash away thy sins, Act. 22. ver. 16. The Sacrament of Baptism doth of itself wash away sins, Rhemist. And we see in S. james, that remission of sins is annexed to the unction with oil, Rhemist. 1. Timoth. 4.14. Ergo, the Sacraments give and confer grace. Ans. 1. To the first we answer, that the text joineth with the Sacrament, the invocation of the name of God, to the which salvation is promised, Rom. 10.13. to wash away sins: wherefore that place maketh nothing for your purpose. Secondly, in the other place health of body is promised by the gift of miracles▪ but remission of sins is said to be obtained by the prayer of the Elders. The prayer of faith shall save the sick, jam. 5.15. Argum. 2. S. Paul. saith, He hath cleansed his Church, by the laver of water in the word, Ephes. 5.26. Ergo baptism is an instrumental cause of our justification. Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is not unusual in the Scripture to call the sign or Sacrament by the thing signified: as, Exod. 12.11. the Paschall Lamb is called the Passeover, whereas it was but a sign and memorial thereof. So Baptism is called, The laver of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. because it is a sure sign of our regeneration by the holy Ghost. Secondly, the Apostle in this place expoundeth himself: for he saith, that We are washed by water in the word: that is, the outward element doth send and refer us to the word and promise of God, whereof it is a seal. The Protestants. THe sacraments have no power to give or confer grace to the receiver: neither are they immediate instruments of our justification: instrumental means they are to increase and confirm our faith in the promises of God: of themselves they have no operation, but as the spirit of God worketh by them, our internal senses being moved and quickened by those external objects. Neither do we say, that the sacraments are bare and naked signs of spiritual graces: but they do verily exhibit and represent Christ to as many, as by faith are able and meet to apprehend him. So to conclude: look how the word of God worketh being preached, so do the sacraments: but the word doth no otherwise justify us, but by working faith at the hearing thereof: So sacraments do serve for the increase of our faith: faith is not a servant and handmaid to the sacraments, (as the jesuite declared by the homely similitude of the fire and dry wood) but faith is the more principal, and the sacraments have no other use or end, then as they are helps for the strengthening of our faith. Grace of themselves they can give or confer none. Argum. 1. Rom. 1.17. The just shall live by faith: Ergo, he liveth not, that is, he is not justified by any work wrought, as by the sacraments, but only by faith: faith therefore giveth life and efficacy to the sacraments, it is not contained absolutely in themselves. Again, Saint Paul saith, That faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, before he was circumcised, Rom. 4.10. Ergo, he was not justified by circumcision: no more are we by the sacraments: but both he and we are justified only by faith. Argum. 2. Saint Peter saith, Baptism saveth us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request unto God, by the resurrection of Christ, 1. Pet. 3.21. Ergo, it is faith in the resurrection of Christ, which worketh in us peace of conscience, and not the outward washing, that saveth or justifieth, Kemnitij argum. Augustine thus writeth: Aliud est aqua sacramenti, aliud aqua, Tractat. in Epist. johan. 6. quae significat spiritum dei: ista visibilis est, & abluit corpus, & significat, quid fit in anima, per illum spiritum anima mundatur & saginatur. The water of the Sacrament is one thing, the water which signifieth the spirit is another: the one is visible, and washeth the flesh, and signifieth what is done in the soul: but by the spirit the soul is cleansed. The Sacrament of Baptism then, by this father's sentence, and so all other sacraments, do not give grace, but signify only and represent grace. THE SECOND PART, OF THE difference of the old and new Sacraments. error 93 THe sacrifices and ceremonies of the old law were so far from giving spirit, grace, remission, justification, and thereupon the entrance into the joys of heaven, that they were but mere shadows, obscurely representing the graces of the new testament: whereas the sacraments instituted by Christ, contain and give grace, and justification. Rhemist. Heb. 10. sect. 3. Argum. 1. They were but shadows of good things, not the image of the things themselves, Heb. 10.1. They were but shadows and representations of the sacraments of the new Testament. Ergo they had not the same efficacy or power. Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1. Their sacraments were only shadows of Christ's sacrifice, not of our sacraments, though these come in the place of the other, and are answerable and correspondent unto them. Secondly, neither do the sacraments of the new Testament give grace or justification, but are only lively testimonies of grace and reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ. Thirdly, their sacraments were as effectual to assure the Fathers of grace & remission of sins by Christ, as our sacraments are to us. Fulk ibid. The Protestants. WE do hold and constantly affirm and teach, that the Fathers in the law received no less the truth and substance of Christ by faith in their sacraments, than we do in ours: although in respect of more clear and lightsome signification, our Sacraments do far exceed theirs, and so also may more lively stir up our faith: yet the substance and effect both of their sacraments and ours, was all one and the very same. Argum. 1. S. Paul speaketh plainly, that the Israelites did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drink of the same spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ, 1. Corin. 10.3.4. Therefore Christ was exhibited as well to them in their sacraments, as he is in ours. Bellarm. answereth, They did all eat the same spiritual meat amongst themselves, not the same together with us. So also say the Rhemists, that they amongst themselves did all feed of one bread, and drink of the same rock. The Apostle saith not, that they and we do eat and drink of the selfsame meat and drink. Rhemist. in hunc l●cum. Ans. 1. Yes the Apostle saith so in effect, that there is one and the self same spiritual meat and drink to us all, both to them and us: for what do we eat and drink but Christ? and so do they: The rock, saith the Apostle, was Christ. Secondly, Augustine saith so expressly, that they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual cup, that we do: Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, eundem, quem nos cibum spiritualem manducaverunt: de utilitat. penitent. cap. 2. They which in the eating of Manna did understand Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do. Ergo, Christ was as well present by faith to them in their sacraments, as he is to us in ours. THE THIRD PART, OF THE Character or badge, which (as they say) is imprinted in the soul by the sacraments. The Papists. FIrst, there is a certain seal, and spiritual mark or badge, imprinted by the sacraments, in the souls of the receivers, which can never be blotted error 94 out, neither by sin, apostasy, or heresy: 2. but it perpetually remaineth for the cognisance of their christendom, and distinction from others, that were never of Christ's fold, by which also they are consecrated and deputed to God. Thirdly, this indelible Character, is given by three sacraments only, Baptism, Confirmation, Orders; which is the cause they are not reiterable, nor ever to be received but once. Rhemist. annotat. 2. Cor. 1. sect. 7. Trident. Concil. sess. 7. can. 9 Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 19 Argum. 2. Corinth. 1.22. He hath sealed us, and given the earnest of the spirit into our hearts. Likewise, Ephes. 4.30. Grieve not the spirit of God, by whom ye are sealed against the day of redemption. This sealing is nothing else, as they say, but an imprinting in the soul of this indelible mark or Character. Answ. First, the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the spiritual and inward seal of the spirit of God, whereof Baptism is an outward seal in our bodies. Secondly, it is an absurd thing to hold, that he that hath utterly and maliciously renounced Christianity, and blasphemed Christ himself, should still retain this Character of Baptism, as a cognisance of his christendom. Thirdly, Baptism is not reiterable, that is, to be iterated or repeated, not because it leaveth an indelible character in the mind of the baptised; which is but a mere devise and fancy: but because, as it sufficeth once to be borne in the flesh, so once to be borne again, and to be regenerate by the spirit (of the which regeneration, Baptism is a seal and pledge) it is sufficient. As for confirmation, and orders, we acknowledge them to be no sacraments: and therefore to have no such indelible character. The Protestants. THat by Baptism and some other sacraments, there is imprinted in the soul a mark or character, which can never be blotted out, no not by Apostasy: and that this is the cause why Baptism cannot be iterated, we hold it to be a mere device, and invention of men. Argum. 1. Where the end and fruits of Baptism are utterly extinguished, there can not remain any character or badge, or sign of Baptism: The fruits of Baptism are repentance, and regeneration by the spirit: But it is possible for these, in some that are baptised, to be utterly lost, as in them that fall away by Apostasy, they cannot be renewed by repentance, Hebr. 6.6. therefore in such, there is not to be found any character, badge or sign of Baptism, which they have utterly renounced: only the memorial thereof is kept before God, they being so much worse, than they that were never baptised, because they have wilfully rejected their profession. Argum. 2. The cause why Baptism is but once to be given, is not, as they allege, because it leaveth such a sure mark behind, so deeply died in the soul, that it cannot be blotted out. There are other causes that come nearer the truth: 1. As God is but one, who maketh a covenant with us in Baptism, and the faith but one, into the which we are entered by that sacrament: so Baptism is one and the same, Ephes. 4.5. 2. The institution of God is another cause, who hath appointed the other sacrament often to be received, 1. Corinth. 11.25. but for the iteration of Baptism, we have no such commandment. 3. Baptism cometh in the place of Circumcision: as that was but once administered, so likewise it must be in the other. 4. In Baptism God maketh a perpetual covenant with us, which he always remembreth, & therefore need not to be put in mind, by the often using of that sacrament. These and the like reasons may be alleged, why Baptism is not often to be required: and not that, which by them without any ground is pretended. Augustine is flat against them, for the iteration of confirmation: Manus impositio non sicut baptismus repeti non potest. Quid enim est aliud, nisi oratio super hominem? The imposition of hands is not as Baptism, never to be iterated again: for what is it else, but prayer over a man? De baptism. contr. Donat. lib. 3. cap. 16. Confirmation in his opinion may be iterated, and therefore imprinteth no such character. THE FOURTH PART, OF THE necessity of the sacraments. THey willingly grant, that no sacraments are absolutely necessary in their nature, but in respect of the institution and commandment of God, for he is as able to work without sacraments, as with them. In this point, we are agreed: the points of difference are these. The Papists. 1 THese 3. sacraments are absolutely and simply necessary, as they are instituted error 95 of God: Baptism unto all: Penance to those that fall after Baptism: Order simply necessary to the whole Church. And thus they understand necessary, that without the which a man cannot be saved: without the rest of the sacraments men may be saved, so there be no negligence or contempt, Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram. cap. 22. The Protestants. THough the sacraments being appointed for our comfort, are necessary and profitable as wholesome means to be used for the increase of our faith, and much to be desired and sought for: yet God hath not laid such a necessity upon any of them, as that the want of them should cause hazard of salvation. The thief upon the Cross was saved both without Baptism and Penance: I pray you what penance did Peter after his thrice denial of Christ, but that he wept bitterly, and earnestly repent him of his fall? Such repentance we hold to be necessary, but a sacrament of penance we acknowledge none. So the ordaining of ministers to preach, is the ordinary means to beget men unto the faith: yet many have been called without such preaching: as Paul was converted by the voice of Christ from heaven, Nabuchadnezzar was called by the great miracle of the preservation of the three children in the fiery oven. So Augustine saith, undique vocat nos Deus ad poenitentiam, vocat per lectorem, vocat per tractatorem, vocat per intimam cogitationem▪ vocat per flagellum correptionis, vocat per misericordiam consolationis: God calleth us every way to repentance; he calleth, by the reader, by the preacher, by the inward thought, by the scourge of correction, by the mercy of consolation: in Psal. 102. God therefore may call and instruct us by more ways than one, he is not tied to any. The Papists. 2 THe sacraments of the new law are necessary to salvation, that is, it is impossible to obtain the grace of justification, by faith alone, without the celebrating of the sacraments, sine sacramentis, aut eorum voto, or at least, having a will, purpose, and desire to celebrate and use them, Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 4. The Protestants. A Necessity of the sacraments we grant, as also of other profitable means, as of preaching the word, of prayer, and the like: but no simple or absolute necessity, as we have said: neither are the sacraments necessary at all, being ordained for no such use, to be means to apply the grace of justification unto us: but our justification is only applied and apprehended by faith, as Saint Paul concludeth, Rom. 3.28. that a man is justified by faith only, without works of the law: yea, all works whatsoever are excluded, as destroying grace, Rom. 11. ver. 6. The sacraments are profitable instruments, to stir up the gift of faith and other graces in us, but not by their proper work to justify us. De tempor. serm. 53. Augustine saith: Primò fides catholica Christiano necessaria est, per ipsam renascimur in baptismate, & salutem aeternam impetramus: First of all, the catholic faith is necessary for a Christian, by the which in Baptism we are borne again, and obtain eternal salvation. He saith not that Baptism, but that faith is necessary, and that it is faith which giveth life to the sacrament: it worketh not by it own proper act. THE THIRD QUESTION OF THE number and order of the sacraments. THE FIRST PART, OF the number. The Papists. THeir general sentence and opinion is this, that there are seven sacraments, error 96 neither more or less: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Orders, extreme Unction. If any man say that any of these are not truly and properly sacraments, or that they are not all of Christ's institution, let him be anathema, or accursed, Concil. Trid. sess. 7. can. 1. Argum. The number of seven is mystical, prophetical, perfect: the Prophet commanded Naaman to wash himself seven times, 2. King. 4. The Altar must be cleansed seven days, Exod. 29.37. job offered seven bullocks & seven rams for his friends, job 42. So in the Apocalyps. 7. Churches, 7. Angels, 7. stars, 7. Candlesticks, 7. thunders, and the like: And why not also seven sacraments? Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 26. Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 1. sect. 3. Answ. First, the number of seven is sometime applied, to describe mysteries of wickedness, as well as of godliness: As the beast with seven heads, Apoc. 17.8. is called a mystery, or as your vulgar Latin hath it, a sacrament. And with greater reason may we conclude, that this beast with seven heads, is Antichrist, with his seven Popish sacraments: than you out of Naamans' seven times washing, can pick out seven sacraments. But if you will needs make a mystery of seven: it may as well be a mystery of iniquity as of godliness, even the mystery of the beast with seven heads, as we have said. Secondly, what though the number of seven, and of some other numbers, be sometime mystical and significative, when it pleaseth the Lord in his word so to apply and appoint them? doth it therefore follow, that men upon their own heads, may superstitiously apply numbers to sacraments, prayers, fastings, times, as though there were any religion in numbers, or that the Lord had the rather respect unto such things because of the number? The Protestants. THis word or name, Sacrament, may be taken two ways: first, generally for any mystical sign or symbol, which may represent an holy thing: and so we will grant, that there may be not only seven Sacraments, but seven and seven: which are more properly symbols and signs, than sacraments: As the covering of the head in the woman is a symbol of subjection, 1. Cor. 11.10. the Sabbath day a symbol or sacrament of the heavenly rest, Heb. 4. In this sense Augustine calleth the mystery of the Trinity a sacrament: yea he saith, the sacrament of fire, because therein in some sort, by the undivided and inseparable properties thereof, the heat, light, De symbol. lib. 3. cap. 9 and shining brightness, the Trinity, saith he, is shadowed forth. Wherefore every sign or symbol of a holy thing, that hath a spiritual signification, either found in scripture, or devised by men, is not by and by a sacrament. Secondly, if we will take a sacrament in the strict and proper sense, there are especially three things required thereunto: First, that they do not only signify, but exhibit and represent unto us after a lively manner, the spiritual things which are signified. Secondly, they must have the institution & perpetual commandment of Christ. Thirdly, the sacraments of the new law must succeed in the place of the old. Hereupon we will infer, that there are but two sacraments in the new Testament, Baptism, and the Lords Supper. Argum. 1. These two alone are not only signs of heavenly things, but seals and pledges unto us thereof, whereby our faith is strengthened, and our hope confirmed in the promises of God: as the remission of sins is represented in Baptism, Act. 2.38. the death of Christ showed forth in the Eucharist, 1. Corinth. 11.26. The like commendation is not given of any other of their sacraments. Argum. 2. Christ only commanded these two sacraments to be used for ever in his Church: to such spiritual purposes, as Baptism is instituted and commanded, Math. 28.19. the Lords Supper likewise, Math. 26. Many other ceremonies Christ used himself, as lifting up of hands, the tempering of clay and spittle, his Apostles imposition of hands, and anointing with oil: But he hath not laid his commandment upon these ceremonies, enjoining us perpetually to keep them▪ as he hath charged us with the other two. Argum. 3. The sacraments of the new Testament succeed in the room of them of the old: Baptism standeth in stead of Circumcision, the lords Supper is come in place of the Paschal Lamb. But they cannot show what old sacraments, those five other newly invented, confirmation, orders, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, do succeed and supply: Ergo, they are none. And beside, if all these should be sacraments, and so seven in all: we should have more in number then the jews had, which is not to be admitted: for they had but two ordinary sacraments, Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb: two extraordinary, as their baptism in the red sea and the cloud, and their eating of the Manna, and drinking of the rock, 1. Corin. 10.2.3. So they should have but four sacraments, for your seven. Other legal rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices they had, and many typical shadows and significations, but no more sacraments than we have heard. Augustine yieldeth to have no more sacraments then only two: As Eva was made out of Adam's side as he was asleep: Sic ex latere domini dormientis in cruse manaverunt sacramenta, ex quibus formaretur ecclesia: So out of the lords side sleeping upon the cross, the sacraments of the Church issued: that is, water and blood: by the which he understandeth the two sacraments. THE SECOND PART, OF THE order and degree of the sacraments among themselves. The Papists. error 97 IF any man shall say, that these seven sacraments are of equal dignity, and not one in some respect to be preferred before the other, let him be accursed, Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 3. In divers respects one sacrament may excel another, as Baptism excelleth the rest, because of remission of sins thereby effected, or, as we say, represented. Orders excel, in respect of the minister, because they are only, say they, conferred by a Bishop. Matrimony excelleth, in respect of the signification, the conjunction of Christ and his Church. But simply the Eucharist exceedeth all, because of the substance of the sacrament, the real and bodily presence of Christ. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 28. Answer. First, that Baptism and the Eucharist exceed all the other, we do easily admit; for we hold them to be no sacraments: and therefore we stand not upon their several privileges. Secondly, neither Baptism is more excellent than the Lords Supper, because it representeth the remission of sins: for that also is insinuated in the other: for how can we show forth the Lords death, which is done in that sacrament, unless we call to mind the benefits purchased by his death, as remission of sins? Neither doth the Eucharist go beyond Baptism, in regard of a more full presence of Christ: for he is not otherwise present in one sacrament, then in the other, presenting himself in both spiritually to be apprehended of the worthy receiver: as for that carnal and gross presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, we acknowledge none: as afterward it shall more fully appear, when we come in order to that question. Augustine showeth, that Christ is no otherwise present in the Eucharist, then in the preaching of the word, for the manner of his presence: Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est, & quod vobis tracto, panis quotidianus est, De divers. serm. 9 & quoth in ecclesia lectiones quotidie auditis, panis quotidianus est: the Eucharist or sacrament of thanksgiving is our daily bread, that which I handle and preach to you, is our daily bread, that which you hear read daily in the Church, is our daily bread. If Christ then be no more really present in the sacrament then in the word, what is become of the pre-eminence, that the one sacrament in that respect should have above the other? The Protestants. THat the one sacrament should be so much extolled above the other, namely, the Lords Supper to be preferred before Baptism, as the more worthy and excellent sacrament, we find no such thing in the word of God: but that both of them are of like dignity in themselves, and to be had equally and indifferently in most high account: thus it is proved. Argum. 1 They are both commanded and instituted by the same authority of our Lord jesus Christ: neither is one by the first institution advanced above the other. Secondly, there is the same matter and substance of both sacraments, Christ jesus with all his benefits. Thirdly, one and the same end of them both, which is the increase and strengthening of our faith in the promises of God: Ergo, they are both of equal dignity and worthiness. Let them say now, which is the more worthy thing, Baptism, or the word preached: no doubt, they will prefer Baptism: for they hold that the sacraments do give grace by the work wrought, and so doth not the word: yea, they are offended, because we say, that the sacraments are no otherways instruments of our justification, than the word preached is, but that the one worketh by the hearing, the other by the senses of seeing, handling, tasting: but they all serve to one end, namely, to beget and increase faith in us. This our assertion they utterly mislike, Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 2. Whereby it appeareth, that they prefer Baptism before the word. We then thus reason out of Augustine: He thus writeth: Dicite mihi, quid plus videtur vobis, verbum dei, an corpus Christi? respondere debetis, quod non sit minus verbum dei: Tell me, which is the chiefer in your opinion, the word of God or the body of Christ? (& that is the sacrament of his body:) ye must answer, that the word of God is not inferior: Homil. 26. Hence we frame this argument: The word of God is equivalent to the sacrament of the Lords body: Baptism is equivalent to the word of God, by our adversaries own confession. Ergo, also it is of equal value and dignity, with the other sacrament. THE TWELFTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. THis controversy standeth upon divers questions: 1. Of the name and definition of Baptism. Secondly, of the parts of Baptism. Thirdly, of the necessity of Baptism. Fourthly, of the Minister of Baptism. Fiftly, of the parties which are to be baptised. Sixtly, of the effects of Baptism. Seventhly, of the difference of Christ's Baptism and john's. Eightly, of the ceremonies of Baptism. THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptism. COncerning the name, there is no question between us, for the name of Baptism hath the original and beginning from the scripture: Saint Paul useth this word, Coloss. 2.12. We are buried with him through Baptism. And again, Heb. 6.2. All the question is about the definition of Baptism. The Papists. error 98 THey define Baptism to be a sacrament of regeneration by water in the word: that is not which signifieth and sealeth unto us our regeneration, and assureth us of remission of sins: but actually justifieth and regenerateth us, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism. cap. 1. The Protestants. WE rather, according to the scriptures, define baptism, to be a sign or seal of our regeneration and new birth, whereby we are assured, that as verily by faith in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sins, as our bodies are washed with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: So that Baptism doth not actually bestow remission of sins by the work wrought, but is a pledge and seal of the righteousness of faith, as Saint Paul saith of Circumcision: Rom. 4.11. for it is not the washing of the flesh by water, but the establishing of the heart with faith and grace, that saveth us, 1. Pet. 3.21. See this point handled more at large, controvers. 11. next before, quest. 2. part. 1. Augustine saith, Per fidem renascimur in baptismate: by faith we are borne again in Baptism, De tempor. serm. 53. It is then the proper act of faith, to regenerate us, not of Baptism, the use and end whereof, is to strengthen and increase our faith. THE SECOND QUESTION OF THE PARTS, which are the matter and form of Baptism. AS touching the matter, that is, the external element used in Baptism, there is no question between us, but that it ought to be plain and common water, Act. 10.47. Saint Peter saith, Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised? Wherefore we condemn the foolish and ungodly practices and inventions of heretics, that either exclude water altogether, as the Manichees, with others; or do use any other element, as the jacobites, that in stead of water, burned them, that were to be baptised, with a hot iron: or as the Aethiopians, which are called Abyssines, Bez. Matth. 3. vers. 11. that used fire in stead of water: misconstruing the words of the Gospel, Matth. 2.11. That Christ should baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire: which is not literally to be understood, but thereby is signified the internal and forcible working of the spirit, which kindleth zeal and love in our hearts as fire. Concerning the form of Baptism: we all agree, that no other is to be used, then that prescribed by our Saviour Christ: to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost: that it is neither lawful to change this form in sense, as many heretics have done, nor yet in words, as to leave out any of the three persons in Trinity, and inclusively to understand them by naming of one: for whereas some allege that place, Act. 2.38. Be ye baptised in the name of jesus Christ, for remission of sins; to prove, that it is lawful only in the name of Christ to baptise, we are to understand, that the form of Baptism is not in that place expressly set down, but the scope only and end of Baptism, which is to assure us of remission of sins in the name of Christ, as Beza very well noteth upon that place. The point of difference between us, concerning the form of Baptism is this. The Papists. THey are bold to affirm, that this form of Baptism, to baptise in the name error 99 of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is not fully concluded out of Scripture, but delivered by tradition: for (say they) the commandment of Christ, to baptise in the name of the Trinity, Matth. 28. may be understood thus: to baptise them into the faith of the Trinity, or by the authority of the Trinity. And it were sufficient, by those words, to do and perform it in act, without saying the words; were it not, that we have otherwise learned by tradition, that this very form of words is to be kept, Bellarmine de baptism. lib. 1. cap. 3. The Protestants. WE need no tradition for this matter; the very form which is to be used in Baptism, is plainly proved out of the Scriptures: for that commandment of Christ, Go and baptise, etc. doth necessarily imply a form of speech to be used. We grant, that in the Scriptures, this word (name,) is taken for power, virtue, authority, as Act. 3.6. In the name of jesus arise and walk. So also, as there is a Baptism with water, there may be a baptizing with fire, Matth. 3.11. Wherefore if part of the commandment be to be taken properly and literally, as this, Go and baptise, why not the rest also, In the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost? If then the whole commandment be properly and plainly understood: how can they baptise in the name of the Trinity, unless the Trinity be spoken and named? Secondly, it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture, that this form was used in the Apostles time: As Act. 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, why these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? As if Saint Peter should have reasoned thus: these have received the gifts of the holy Ghost: Ergo, they may be also baptised in the name of the holy Ghost. Likewise, Act. 19.2. When the brethren at Ephesus had answered Paul, that they had not heard, whether there were a holy Ghost: he saith unto them, Unto what then were you baptised? By this interrogatory it appeareth, it was their manner to baptise in the name of the holy Ghost, and so consequently of the whole Trinity. We have no cause then to fly unto tradition, this matter being so plainly decided by the Scripture. Augustin. tract. in johann 80. Upon those words of our Saviour, john 15.3. You are clean through the word, which I have spoken unto you. Detrahe verbum, & quid est aqua, nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit sacramentum. Take away the word, and what remaineth in Baptism but bare water? let the word be joined to the element, and it maketh a Sacrament. The form then of Baptism, is the word, which Christ spoke: and where else speaketh Christ, but in the scriptures? Ergo the form of Baptism, is the word of Christ, prescribed and commanded in the scriptures. Away therefore with your uncertain and deceitful traditions. Our Baptism is builded upon a surer foundation: namely, the word of God. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE necessity of Baptism. The Papists. THey affirm, that Baptism is simply necessary to salvation by God's appointment: error 100 so that all which die unbaptized, unless the want of Baptism be recompensed either by Martyrdom, or penance, must needs perish, and be deprived of eternal life, Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 7. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptism. cap. 4. Argum. john 3.5. Our saviour Christ saith, Unless a man be borne of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of GOD: Ergo it is necessary to salvation to be baptised. Bellarm. ibid. Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ans. First, it is not necessary by water here to understand material water, but the purifying grace of Christ, which is called the water of life, john. 4.11. Water then is here added as an Epithet of the spirit, because it cleanseth and purgeth as water: as john 7.38. He that believeth, out of his belly shall flow rivers of waters of life. Quid aqua sit, saith Augustine, evangelium interroga. Inquire of the Gospel, what this water is. Then it followeth, Tract. in Epistol. johann. 6. vers. 39 This spoke he of the spirit, which they that believed in him, should receive. By water than it is no rare thing, to understand the spirit. Secondly, Why may not water be here figuratively taken, to express the working of the spirit, as fire is added to the spirit, Matth. 3.11. He shall baptise with the holy Ghost and with fire. What greater necessity is there in this place, to understand water literally, than fire in the other? Thirdly, as you expound these words of Baptism, so ye do apply another place, john 6.53. to the other Sacrament: Unless you do eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. If this be spoken of the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christ, as the Rhemists take it: then belike there is as great necessity of the Eucharist, as of Baptism: and so indeed Augustine sometime thought, Cont. 1. Epistol. Pelag. lib. 4. cap 4. that the one was as necessary to salvation as the other. Sine Christi carne & sanguine, nec paruuli vitam habere possunt in semetipsis. Without the flesh and blood of Christ, neither can infants have life in themselves. And therefore it was the custom of those times, to give of the Sacrament to children: Paruulis adhuc & infirmis, In Psalm. 64. stillantur quaedam de sacramentis: some part of the Sacrament is instilled and powered into the mouths of young and tender children. But our adversaries in no wise will admit that the Eucharist is as necessary as Baptism: wherefore they do thus comment upon our saviours words: that they also do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, which join in heart and desire to be partakers of the Sacrament, and so mystically, and spiritually do receive it, Rhemist. john 6. sect. 8. And why, I pray you, may there not be as well a mystical and spiritual receiving of Baptism without the Sacrament, as of the Eucharist or Lords Supper, seeing this place, john. 6.53. doth as necessarily enforce the receiving of this Sacrament, as that place, john 3.5. doth lay a necessity of Baptism? The Protestants. We acknowledge no greater necessity in Baptism, then in the other Sacrament: both which we grant to be necessary as helps and props, and profitable means to increase our faith: but not so simply necessary, as that without them (there being no neglect, or contempt had of them) it were impossible to be saved. Argum. 1. The children of the faithful are holy already, even before they are baptised: for they are within the covenant, and to them also belongeth the promise. The Lord saith, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Genes. 17.7. And Saint Paul saith, that the children of the faithful are holy, 1. Corinth. 7.14. If the Lord then be the God also of children, & if they be holy, being borne of the righteous seed, how can they possibly perish, although they die unbaptized? Argum. 2. Circumcision was as necessary to the Israelites▪ as Baptism is to us: but their children, which died before the eight day, when they were to be circumcised, perished not: for David doubteth not to say of his child that died the seventh day, I shall go to him, he cannot return to me, 1. Sam 12.18.23. He pronounceth that the child was saved. Ergo, neither children dying without Baptism now are condemned. Argum. 3. The holy Ghost may be given without Baptism, so it be not contemned and neglected, when it may be had: therefore life eternal may be had without Baptism: for the holy Ghost is able without the sacrament, to regenerate us, and bring us to eternal life. The first is proved, Act. 10.47. Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? They had the holy Ghost before and without Baptism, as Augustine saith, Adhuc loquente Petro, Homil. 23. non dico nondum imponente manum, sed nondum baptizante, venit spiritus sanctus: While Peter yet spoke, before he laid on his hand, or Baptized them, the holy Ghost came: Ergo Baptism not necessary. Argum. 4. You yourselves make two exceptions: of Martyrs and them that do penance, which may be saved without Baptism: Ergo Baptism is not simply necessary. And if our Saviour speak of Baptism, john 3.5. as ye say he doth: there is no privilege for any, no not for Martyrs, for all must be borne of water and the spirit: that is, say you, baptised. Neither are your two exceptions general enough: for the thief upon the cross was saved, and yet neither died a Martyr: for he himself confesseth, that he was righteously punished, Luk. 23.41. neither did he any such penance, or made any such satisfaction, as you require. AN APPENDIX, WHETHER THE want of Baptism may be by any other means supplied. The Papists. Our adversaries make three kinds of Baptism, Baptismum fluminis, baptismum sanguinis, baptismum flaminis: error 101 the Baptism of water, the Baptism of blood, which is Martyrdom, and the Baptism of the spirit, which is contrition and penance: by these two, the first, say they, may be supplied. They affirm, that Martyrdom, and penance or contrition, do by the very act or work wrought remit sins, and justify the workers, and not in respect of the faith only, which is in Martyrs or penitent persons. Bellar. cap. 6. lib. 1. de baptism. Argum. The Innocents', which were slain by Herod, were saved only by their Martyrdom, they had neither faith, nor works. So the thief upon the Cross was not only justified by his faith, but by the act and work of contrition. Ans. First, it is not necessary to hold all those children to be Martyrs, and so to be saved: for Macrobius writeth, that one of Herod's sons, which was nursed in those parts, was slain among the rest: the infants which were saved, were within the promise, and belonged to the covenant, and so could not be lost: their salvation depended of their free election before God, it was not purchased by the very act of their dying. Secondly, the thief also upon the Cross was justified by his faith and belief in Christ. And therefore Augustine doth chiefly commend his faith: Tunc fides eius de ligno floruit, quando discipulorum emarcuit: Then his faith did as it were bud and flourish out of the tree of the cross, when the faith of the Disciples withered. The Protestants. NEither the outward work of Martyrdom nor contrition do justify, or give remission of sins: but the faith only of Martyrs and penitent persons, whereby they apprehend Christ. Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith, 1. Corinth. 13.3. That if a man give his body to be burned, and have no love, it profiteth not. Ergo it is not the outward act of Martyrdom, but an effectual and lively faith working by love, which pleaseth God. Argum. 2. Neither is the bare work of sorrow and contrition in itself acceptable to God: for there is a worldly repentance that causeth death, there is a godly repentance not to be repent of, which worketh in us care, zeal, fear, desire, which are the fruits of faith, 2. Corinth. 7.10.11. Ergo it is faith only that maketh all our works to be accepted of before God: for without faith, it is unpossible to please him, Hebr. 11.6. The Papists. 2. Martyrdom and contrition or conversion of the heart unto GOD, error 102 though they be no Sacraments, yet may supply the lack of Baptism, Bellarm. ibid. Argum. Martyrdom in the scriptures is rightly called a Baptism: as Christ speaking of his death, saith, I must be baptised with a Baptism, Luk. 12.50. And therefore it may fitly stand in stead of Baptism. Ans. If every thing, that hath the name of Baptism, may be used in place thereof; then add unto your number of such devised supplies, the Pharisaical washing of cups, for they are called baptismata calicum, the Baptisms, or cleansings of cups, Mark. 7.4. The Protestants. WE need not any such supplies to make good the want of Baptism, neither is it safe so to do. 1. It is great presumption and boldness, without warrant of God's word, to give the effect and blessing, which God hath annexed to the Sacraments, to any other external work: for what is this else, but to institute other Sacraments, than Christ left? And shall we not think, that God by his spirit can better supply the loss and the want of the Sacraments, than we by our own inventions can help ourselves? 2. Concerning contrition of the heart, if you understand by it true repentance, and withal a vow and true desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, which cannot be obtained because of some remediless necessity: that in such a case it standeth as available, as if a man had been actually Baptized: for thus the Rhemists expound themselves, annot. john 3.2. I pray you what greater necessity is there now of Baptism, then of the other Sacrament? For this is true, and we willingly grant: that every man that shall be saved, must either receive the Sacraments, or have a desire unto them: for the neglect and contempt of the Sacraments without repentance is a sin damnable. And thus you overthrow yourselves, making Baptism necessary without necessity. De animae origin. lib 1 cap. 9 3. Augustine admitteth none of these supplies, but only Martyrdom: Nemo fit membrum Christi, nisi aut Baptismate Christi, aut morte pro Christo: No man is made the member of Christ, but either by the Baptism of Christ, or in dying for Christ: here Augustine maketh but one supply of Baptism, they make two. When men follow their own inventions, there can be no agreement. THE FOURTH QUESTION, WHETHER women and Laymen ought to baptise. The Papists. error 103 THey hold, that not only Lay men, but Pagans: that are not baptised themselves, yea and women also, may be ministers of Baptism, in a case of necessity, eBllarm. cap. 7. Argum. Exod. 4. Zipporah circumcised her son, and the Lord was pleased therewith, and went away from Moses, whom he came against to have slain him. Ergo women may as well now minister Baptism. Ans. First, there is not the like strict necessity of Baptism, as there was then of Circumcision: for if every man child were not circumcised the eight day, the Lord threatened to cut him off from among the people, Genes. 17.14. But Baptism is not tied or limited to any such time or number of days. Secondly, there was great necessity, which enforced Zipporah to circumcise her child: for they had neglected the time, and passed the stint of days: wherefore the Lord struck Moses with sickness: and being not able himself to perform that duty, his wife in great haste taketh the child and cutteth him, to save her husband's life: but she in great indignation cast away the foreskin from her, knowing that she was constrained to commit an unwomanly act. There cannot be any such necessity of Baptism, as there was then of Circumcision; which was to be done within a certain compass of days. Thirdly, you may as well prove by this example, that a woman may baptise, the Bishop, Priest, or Deacon standing by (which notwithstanding you hold utterly unlawful) as that it is lawful for her to baptise: For Zipporah did it in the presence of Moses. The Protestants. NEither lay men, of what calling soever, nor yet Midwives, or any other women, aught to be suffered in a well reformed Church to baptise infants: neither are they authorized so to do amongst us. Argum. 1. The commission and charge to baptise, was given only by our saviour Christ to his Apostles, and all lawful Ministers their successors, Matth. 28.19. Ergo, Lay men and women, in baptizing, go beyond the commission of Christ. Argum. 2. The preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, are and aught always to be joined together. And the care and charge of both is committed to Pastors and Ministers lawfully ordained: Go, saith our Saviour, and teach all nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28.19. But it is not lawful for women to preach the word, 1. Corinth. 14. vers. 35. Ergo not to baptise. Argum. 3 If it be lawful for such to baptise, it is only in the time of necessity: but there is no such necessity, as we have showed of Baptism. Ergo, it is not at all lawful for them. Augustine's judgement is this: if a Lay man do give Baptism: Nescio an piè quis dixerit esse repetendum: I cannot tell, whether it may well be iterated or repeated. He doth not allow Lay men to baptise: but is of opinion, that they are not to be baptised again, that receive Baptism at their hands. Yet he speaketh uncertainly, (I cannot tell saith he) and so we will conclude with Augustine, Lib. 2 cont. Parmen. cap. 13. Si Laicus baptismum dederit, nulla cogente necessitate, alieni muneris usurpatio est. If a Lay man do baptise, where there is no necessity, it is an usurping of another man's office. But there is no such necessity to cause him so to do: Ergo. THE FIFT QUESTION, OF SUCH AS are to be admitted to baptism. Of the Baptism of Infants. part. 1. THat infants are to be baptised, it is fully agreed and concluded between us. Which point we do strongly maintain by the Scriptures against the Anabaptists of our age. But herein we descent from our adversaries. The Papists. error 104 1. THey affirm, that the Baptism of children and infants is grounded upon tradition, and not upon Scripture, Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo dei. cap. 9 The Protestants. IT were very hard, if we had no more certain ground for the baptizing of infants, than tradition, which is but a feeble weapon to fight against heretics withal: we have manifest proofs out of Scripture for it. First, they belong unto the covenant: Genes. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed: Ergo they have right to the sign of the covenant. Secondly, they are called holy, which are borne of faithful parents, 1. Cor. 7.14. Ergo, are not to be denied Baptism. Thirdly, they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, who died for all the children of God, john 11.52. To them belongeth the kingdom of God: Ergo also Baptism, which is a pledge of remission of sins and eternal life. Fourthly, it is also proved by the practice of the Apostles, who baptised whole families, with all that thereunto belonged, Act 16.33. Fiftly, Augustine also proveth it out of Scripture, by comparing our Baptism with the circumcision of the jews: De baptis. count Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 24. Veraciter coni●cere possumus, quid valeat in paruulis baptismi sacramentum, ex circumcisione carnis, quam prior populus accepit. How available Baptism is in little ones, we may guess by the circumcision, which the former people in the law received. Ergo not only by tradition, but chiefly by Scripture the lawfulness of children's Baptism is confirmed. The Papists. 2. Baptism, they say, giveth 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 have not faith, as other have, yet there is a certain habit of faith and hope infused into them in Baptism, so that partly they do believe of themselves, and partly by the faith of others, namely of them that bring them to Baptism, 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 justified by faith. Ergo children, if they have no faith, are neither justified, neither yet do please God, Bellarm. Ans. First these places do as well prove that children have an absolute, perfect, and actual faith: (for it is a perfect faith that justifieth us, and maketh us acceptable to God) which I am sure our adversaries will not yield unto. Secondly, the justification and salvation of children dependeth of the free election of God, Rom. 9.11. And that which faith worketh, in those that are of understanding, the spirit of God is able to effect in infants, by some secret way, best known to himself. The Protestants. THat infants neither have faith in themselves, nor yet are profited or furthered to their salvation by the faith of others, it is thus proved. Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. 10.17. But infants can neither hear nor understand the word of God: Ergo, no faith is wrought in them. Argum. 2. There is no habitual or potential faith that pleaseth God: but the justifying faith is always actual, working by love, Galath. 5.6. Ergo, children have either no faith, or it must needs be an actual or working faith. Argum. 3. Infants are not justified, nor relieved or helped forward towards their salvation by the faith of their parents, or Godfathers, when they are baptised: for the Scripture saith, The just shall live by faith, Rom. 1.17. that is, by his own faith, not the faith of another. Augustine denieth that children are illuminate in their minds, when they are baptised: Si illuminati essent, ipsum baptismum laeti susciperent, cui videmus eos cum magnis fletibus reluctari: If they were illuminate, they would joyfully receive Baptism, which we see them to strive against with great crying. And why should the Apostle say, Be ye not children in understanding, De pecca. merit & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 26. 1. Corinth. 14.20. if so be their minds were illuminate? Wherefore that saying in the Gospel, saith he, This is the light that lighteth every one that cometh into the world, john 1.9. Whereby they would prove, that children do receive light at their very first coming into the world, is thus to be understood, Quia nullus hominum illuminatur, nisi lumine illo veritatis, because no man is lightened, but only by that light. What now is become of that lumen fidei, the light of faith, which you say is infused into children in Baptism. AN APPENDIX, OF THE POpish use in baptizing of Bels. The Papists. error 106 THey begin now to be ashamed of the blind practices of their superstitious and ignorant forefathers: for Bellarmine flatly denieth, that bells are baptised amongst them: but they are only consecrate and hallowed for divine uses, as other Church vessels are, lib. 4. the Roman pontific. cap. 12. The Protestants. IT is a great shame for them, to deny so manifest a thing. For in the hallowing of bells, first, there were Godfathers chosen, secondly, they gave names to the bells: thirdly, the bells had new garments put upon them, as is accustomed to be done to Christians in their Baptism. Fourthly, the baptizing of bells was only permitted to the Bishop's suffragan, whereas their Priests and Deacons did usually baptise infants: all this showeth, that it was not only a Baptism, which they bestowed upon bells, but in a more principal kind, then common Baptism was. This was one of the grievances, which the Princes of Germany complained of in the assembly at Noremberge, Fox Martyrol. p. 861. col. 1. edition. 4. that the suffragans exacted of the people such great sums of money for the baptizing of bells: with what face then, can they deny this ungodly custom of theirs, in Christening and baptizing of bells? THE sixth QUESTION, OF THE effects and fruits of Baptism. THe parts of this question are these: first, whether our sins are wholly remitted, and clean taken away in Baptism. Secondly, whether Baptism serveth only for the remission of sins that are past. Thirdly, of the liberties and privileges, which are obtained by Baptism: which parts are now severally to be handled. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER IN Baptism our sins be clean taken away. The Papists. THe sins which are past, they affirm, not only by the grace of Christ error 107 received in Baptism, to be forgiven and pardoned, and no more imputed, but even wholly to be razed, and rooted out: Et tolli omne illud, quod veram habet & propriam rationem peccati: And all that wholly to be taken away, which hath the nature and quality of sin, Concil. Trident sess. 5. Decret. de original. peccat. For the concupiscence or original sin, remaining after Baptism, is now no more to be called sin. In infants then newly baptised, there is neither mortal nor venial sin, Rhemist. 1. john. 1. sect. 5. Argum. The Scripture saith, Behold the lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, joh 1.29. Christ doth sanctify and cleanse his Church by the washing of water, through the word. Ergo, by remission, sins clean taken away, Rhemist. Rom. 4. sect. 7. Ephes. 5.26. Ans. First, if sin in baptism were wholly removed, not only the guilt, but the very stain and blot of sin: how cometh it to pass, that many which are baptised, do fall afterward into deadly sins, yea there is no man, that liveth without sin? If sin once have been utterly expelled and banished out of the flesh, how cometh it in again? if their justification have once clearly rid them from sin, how can they be subject to it again? for the grace of justification, being once obtained, can never be lost: the gifts of God are without repentance. Rom. 11.29. 2. The Scripture is true, that Christ by his blood, cleanseth, washeth, taketh away our sins: not by actually purging us from all corruption, but in freely acquitting and discharging of us before God, both of the guilt and punishment of sin: so the Scripture saith, Blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, and to whom the Lord imputeth no sin, Rom. 4.7.8. Our sins therefore may be truly forgiven, though some corruption of sin do still remain in us. The Protestants. THere are three things to be considered in sin. First, the stain or blot, corruption or remnant of sin in us. Secondly, the guilt, fault, and offence of sin. Thirdly, the punishment and stipend due unto it. By our spiritual washing in the blood of Christ, whereof Baptism is a seal, both the guilt and punishment of our sins are not only hid and covered in God's sight (as our adversaries do falsely charge us to say:) but they are truly forgiven us for Christ's sake, and shall never be remembered any more. But yet there is left in us some remnant of sin so long as we live in this flesh, which in the end together with the corruption and mortality of the body, shall be clean taken away. Argum. 1. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1. john. 1.8. Ergo, there are none living at any time void of sin, no not in their Baptism. Saint Paul also exhorteth to be renewed in mind, and to put on the new man, and put off the old, Ephes. 4.23. Ergo, there remaineth some sin and corruption after Baptism: what need else this renewing of the mind, and putting on the new man afterward? Argum. 2. Original sin is not taken away in Baptism, therefore some sin remaineth still: And that this original corruption is properly called sin and is sin indeed, S. Paul showeth evidently, Rom. 7. ver. 7, 8. where he nameth lust and concupiscence sin. Augustine thus writeth, Meminisse debemus peccatorum omnium plenam remissionem fieri in Baptismo, Cont. Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 2●. hominis verò qualitatem non totam continuò mutari: We must remember, that all our sins are fully remitted in Baptism: but the quality of man (that is the corruption, and stain or blot of sin) is not wholly changed. THE SECOND PART: WHETHER Baptism serve only for remission of sins past, & not for the sins also to come. The Papists. error 108 Christes' death applied to man by Baptism, wipeth away all sins past, for new sins other remedies be daily requisite, Rhemist. Heb. 10. sect. 4. The council of Trent holdeth them accursed, that think all sins to be forgiven, fide Baptismi suscepti, by faith of Baptism received, sess. 7. can. 10. Hereupon their saying ariseth, that Baptismus est prima tabula post naufragium: that Baptism is the first board of refuge after shipwreck: & Poenitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium: penance is the second board of refuge: So that if a man do fall after Baptism, he must use other helps and means for the remission of sins: for Baptism is not available for sins afterward committed, Bellarm. cap. 18. Argum. It is impossible, saith the Apostle, for them that have been once lightened, and tasted of the heavenly grace, if they fall away, to be renewed by penance, Heb. 6.6. that is, they which fall away from faith and grace, after Baptism, cannot be baptised again, or be illuminated, or renovated, by so easy a cleansing of sins, as the Sacrament of Baptism did yield: Ergo, Baptism is not available for remission of sins, which men fall into afterward, Bellarm. cap. 18. Ans. The Apostle speaketh not of this or that kind of Repentance, but generally of all, showing, that there is no hope of remission nor grace to repent left for those which fall into the grievous sin of Apostasy, which he here describeth, for they crucify again the Son of God, and make a mock of him, ver. 6. And that the Apostle understandeth the sin of Apostasy, & the sin against the holy Ghost, it appeareth by comparing that other place, Heb. 10.29. with this: for there they are said, to tread under foot the son of God, and to despite the spirit of grace. The Apostle than cutteth off such from all hope of grace, and repentance: not only barreth them from some special kind of repentance. The Protestants. THe external act of Baptism neither wipeth away sins going before, or coming after: but it is the inward working of the spirit of God, which by the virtue of Christ's death, testified and showed forth in Baptism, that washeth away our sins. And Baptism is a seal of remission of sins, for the confirmation of our faith, even of those which are committed after Baptism, as well as of sins done before: and although the ceremony of Baptism be not repeated, yet the virtue of God's spirit testified thereby, remaineth to our lives end. Argum. 1. Mark. 16.16. He that shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved. We reason thus, Baptism is a seal of that faith, whereby men are saved, or to the which salvation is promised: but that faith believeth remission of all sins, both past and to come: therefore Baptism also sealeth unto us the remission of all our sins, going before or following after. Argum. 2. Baptism is a sign and seal of our mystical washing in the blood of Christ: But all our sins both before and after are washed away by the blood of Christ: Ergo, Baptism doth assure us of a perfect remission of all our sins. So saith Augustine: Eodem lavacro regenerationis, & verbo sanctificationis, omnia prorsus mala hominum regeneratorum sanantur, etiam quae posterius humana ignorantia aut infirmitate committuntur. By the same laver of regeneration, and word of Sanctification, all the sins in men regenerate are healed, yea even those, which by human ignorance afterward are committed: Non ut baptisma, quoties peccatur, toties repetatur, sed quia ipso, quod semel datur, fit, ut non solum anteà, verùm etiam posteà quorumlibet peccatorum venia fidelibus impetretur. Not that Baptism, so oft as a man sinneth, is to be repeated: but by virtue of that which is once given, it cometh to pass, that the faithful have remission of their sins not only before, but also after. Ergo, Baptism hath it force not only for the present, but it reacheth unto the time following. THE THIRD PART OF THE LIBERTY and privileges obtained by Baptism. The Papists. 1. THey have defined, that a man, by Baptism, is not only debtor fidei, sed etiam universae legis Christi implendae, error 109 not only a debtor of the faith, but is made a debtor to perform the whole law of Christ, Concil. Trident. sess. 8. can. 7. that is, Baptism is not only a sign of free justification by faith, neither doth he which is baptised profess himself only by faith to be justified, Bellar. lib. 1 de baptis. cap. 15. but partly also by his works, and the keeping of the commandments of Christ. The Protestants. Ans. IN Baptism we make profession of our obedience, to die unto sin, and rise up to newness of life, Rom. 6.2. yet not thereby to be justified: but in being baptised we show our faith and hope, only to look for remission of sins and salvation of our souls by the death of Christ. Argum. 1. Circumcision, in place whereof Baptism is given to us, is called by the Apostle a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4 11. not of the righteousness of works: much more than is Baptism, which is a Sacrament of the Gospel, a pledge unto us of the justice of faith. Argum. 2. By Baptism we are freed from the curse of the law: for it is a Sacrament of the death of Christ, and of all the benefits thereof: and Christ by his death hath borne for us the curse of the law, Galath. 3.13. But if by Baptism we bind ourselves to the observance of the law, to be justified and find life thereby, we must needs fall into the curse, because we are not able to keep the commandments. Wherefore seeing Baptism delivereth us from the curse, it also exempteth us from the works of the law. The Papists. error 110 2. ALthough Christians are bound by solemn vow in Baptism to walk in obedience before God, and to keep his commandments: yet are they not therefore freed and exempted from the observance of the laws and ordinances of men, the which they are bound in conscience to keep, and under pain of damnation, Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants. Baptism only bindeth us to keep the commandments of God: and so far forth also to obey men, as they command things lawful: but we must not be brought in bondage to men's traditions and observations, seeing we are the Lords free men, and by Baptism consecrate to his service. Argum. Math. 28.19. Go and teach, baptizing them, etc. and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Ergo, Baptism bindeth us only to the observation of God's precepts. 1. Corinth. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, be not the servants of men: Baptism is a sign of the death of Christ, the price of our redemption. Ergo, we are freed from all mere human service, in receiving of Baptism. For this cause is it called the Baptism of Christ: Cont. Petili. lib. 3.55. Augustine saith, Paulus dixisse legitur evangelium meum: baptismum autem Christi nemo Apostolorum ita unquam ministravit, ut auderet dicere suum. Paul is read to have said, My Gospel: but never any of the Apostles durst call the Baptism of Christ their Baptism. Ergo, seeing it is the Baptism of Christ, and we are only baptised in his name, not in our own name, or the name of men: we must only hope to be saved by faith in him, and become his servants wholly. THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE difference between the Baptism of our Saviour Christ, and the Baptism of john. The Papists. THe Baptism of John (they say) was of another kind than Christ's Baptism was, neither was it sufficient without Christ's Baptism, nor had the error 111 like force or efficacy, as his Baptism had: and therefore such as had been baptised of john, were afterward admitted to Christ's Baptism, Concil. Trident. sess. 8. canon. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis. cap. 20.21. Argum. 1. Matth. 3.11. john himself saith, I baptise you with water: but he shall baptise you with the holy Ghost: Ergo, john's Baptism and Christ's not all one: for john's Baptism gave not the holy Ghost. Bellarm. ibid. Ans. john speaketh not of diverse Baptisms, but of diverse operations, and ministries, in one and the same Baptism: for john, as all other ministers do, did but give water: and Christ working together with them, giveth the holy Ghost. But it will be answered, that john saith not, he doth baptise, but he shall baptise: Ergo, Christ did not baptise together with john by his spirit. Ans. The same john in another place speaketh of Christ in the present tense. john. 1.33. This is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost: Ergo, Christ did both then baptise with his spirit, and afterwards also more manifestly, when the gifts of the spirit began to be shed forth more plentifully upon men. Argum. 2. Saint Paul baptised twelve men at Ephesus with Christ's Baptism, that had received john's before, Act. 19.4.5. Ergo, john's Baptism was not the same that Christ's was, Bellarm. Ans. There can be no such thing gathered out of that place; for those words in the fifth verse: When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus, are part of the narration which Paul maketh of john's manner of Baptism: so that the sense is this, they that heard john's doctrine, were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus. It is not so to be read, as though they were baptised again of Paul, but he layeth only his hands upon them, that had before received the Baptism of john. The Protestants. THat john's Baptism was not diverse from Christ's Baptism, but was all one with it in property and effect, and that they which were baptised by john, were baptised into the name of Christ, and therefore needed not again to be baptised; thus it is made manifest out of Scripture. Argum. 1. john's Baptism differed not in the matter of the Sacrament, for he baptised with water as Christ's Apostles did. There was also the same form of both, the word of God: for john also taught the people to believe in jesus Christ that was to come, Act. 19.4. There was also the same scope and end of john's Baptism: For he preached the Baptism of repentance, for remission of sins, Mark. 1.4. Ergo, it was the same with the Baptism of Christ. Argum. 2. If the Baptism instituted by Christ were another Baptism, than john's was, and yet he himself was baptised of john: than it would follow, that we are baptised now with another Baptism, than Christ himself was, for he received john's Baptism: but this were very absurd, to say, that there is not the same Baptism of the head and the members, of Christ and his Church: Ergo, john's Baptism all one with Christ's. Bellarmine denieth, that the proper end and scope of john's Baptism was for remission of sins: yet Augustine granteth it, who notwithstanding being carried away with the error of that time, doth else where put some difference between the Baptism of john and Christ: Si quis contendat in baptismo johannis dimissa esse peccata, De Baptis. count Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 14. non ago pugnanter: If any man will contend, that remission of sins also was given in john's Baptism, I will not be against it. There being then the same proper end and scope of both these Baptisms, how can they choose but be all one? THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF the ceremonies and rites of Baptism. The Papists. error 112 THey have brought into the Sacrament of Baptism a multitude of superstitious ceremonies, whereby they have greatly polluted the holy Sacrament of Baptism, mixing therewith their own inventions. First before Baptism, they have devised these toys to be used. First, they do exorcise, conjure, and exufflate the evil spirit from the party to be baptised. Secondly, they touch the ears and nostrils with spittle, that his ears may be opened to hear the word, and his nostrils, to discern between the smell of good and evil. Thirdly, the Priest signeth his eyes, ears, mouth, breast, forehead, nostrils, with the sign of the cross, that all his senses thereby may be defended. 4. Then hallowed salt is put into his mouth, that he may be seasoned with wisdom, and be kept from putrefying in sin. 5. The party is anointed then with oil in his breast, that he may be safe from evil suggestions, & between the shoulders, which signifieth the receiving of spiritual strength. Secondly, these ceremonies do accompany Baptism itself. 1. The Font and water therein is consecrated and hallowed, in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost. 2. He is thrice dipped in the water, to signify the being of Christ 3. days in the grave. Thirdly, after Baptism, they have this use, 1. He is anointed with holy Chrism in the top of the head, & thereby is become a Christian. 2. A white garment is put upon him, to betoken his regeneration. 3. A vail is put upon his head, in token that he is now crowned with a royal Diadem. 4. A burning taper is put into his hand, to fulfil that saying in the Gospel, Let your light so shine before men, etc. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism. 25.26.27. Catechism. Rom. p. 310. Gabr. Biel. lib. 4. distinct. 6. qu. 3. The Protestants. AGainst these Popish ceremonies, which they use in baptism, we do reason thus. 1 It is contrary to the rule of the Gospel, that there should be such types, shadows, significations, brought into the service of God, as they make in Baptism: for seeing we have the body which is Christ, all such shadows ought to be abolished, Coloss. 2.17. 2 In one sacrament they have forged and found out many, as their chrism, oil, salt, spittle: which they make not only seals of holy things, but givers and conferrers of grace, which is more than any sacrament can have: and it is contrary to the scripture: for the spirit of GOD is as the wind that bloweth, where it listeth, john. 3. It is not tied to creatures, elements, external signs, as they include the spirit (as it were) in these outward things, which have power (as they affirm) to give wisdom, strength, power against the devil, and such like. But Saint Paul saith, that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, 2. Corinthian. 10.4. The means whereby Christians both obtain spiritual graces, and shend them from evil, are spiritual: For if in Christ Circumcision avail not any thing, which was notwithstanding instituted of God: but faith is all in all, Galath. 5.6. Much more vain and unavaileable are the devices and inventions of men. 3 This beggarly company of ceremonies doth also deface and impugn the sincere and pure institution of Christ: None of all those ceremonies were used when Christ himself was baptised, Math. 3. which notwithstanding had been most fit, considering the worthiness of his person that was baptised. Neither did Christ give any such thing in charge to his Apostles, but biddeth them only preach, and baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Math. 28.19. nor yet were any such ceremonies in use in the Apostles time. Saint Peter saith, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised? He calleth not for oil, salt, spittle, or any such thing, but only for water. Augustine utterly misliketh this cumbersome rabble of needless ceremonies, Epist. 119 cap. 19 Ipsam religionem, quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit, onerib. premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio judaeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur: They do cumber religion with their burdensome inventions, which Christ made free with a very few sacraments: so that the jews case was more tolerable, who though they knew not the liberty of the Gospel, yet were subject to the legal ceremonies, not to the inventions of men. And is it not even thus (I pray you) in the Popish Church? for never was jewish circumcision stuffed with the third part of ceremonies, which their Baptism is defiled withal. THE THIRTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SUPPER OR EUCHARIST. THis Controversy hath two parts: First, of the sacrament itself. Secondly, of the sacrifice, which they say, is offered up in the sacrament: which they call the sacrifice of the Mass. THE FIRST PART, OF THE SAcrament of the Eucharist. THis part of the controversy standeth upon divers questions: First, whether the body of Christ be really and substantially in the sacrament. Secondly, whether the elements of bread and wine be changed, converted, and transubstantiate into the very body and flesh of Christ. Thirdly, whether the Eucharist remain a sacrament after the use and celebration. Fourthly, of the outward elements in this sacrament. Fiftly, of the words of consecration. Sixtly, of the proper effect of the Lords supper. Seventhly, of the manner of celebrating it. Eightly, whether it ought to be ministered in one kind. Ninthly, whether it is to be adored. THE FIRST QUESTION, CONCERNING the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. The Papists. IN the sacrament of the Eucharist, under the forms of bread and wine, by error 113 the efficacy of the word of Christ spoken by the Priest, is really, verily, and substantially present, the natural body and blood of Christ, Fox. 113●. articul. 1. sex articul. which was conceived of the virgin Marie; the same body, that is now in heaven, Rhemist. Mat. 26. sect. 4. yet after another manner: For he is in heaven according to the natural existence of his body: in the sacrament, he is really present in his flesh, yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power, Concil. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1. Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented: the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel: therefore they ought to be inferior. But unless the bread & wine should be the very blood & flesh of Christ in the sacrament: their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior, but far superior to ours. As for example, the Paschal Lamb is in nature to be preferred before bread, and the slaying of the Lamb did more lively represent the death of Christ, than the breaking of bread, the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spiritual nourishing, than the eating of bread. Wherefore, unless we believe a real presence in the sacrament; their sacrifices, in dignity and excellency should far exceed and excel ours, Bellarm. lib. 1. de. sacram. Eucharist. ca 3. Ans. 1. It is not true, that their sacraments were figures of ours: But S. Paul showeth, that both their sacraments and ours do figure out and represent the same thing, as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ, 1. Corint. 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs, and theirs also had a certain reference and relation to ours: but they were not types of ours: for then our sacraments should be the body of theirs, whereas Christ is the body both of their sacraments and ours. Saint Peter saith, that Baptism is an antitypon, a figure answerable to the saving of the eight persons in the flood: 1. Pet. 3.21. They are correspondent one to the other, and had mutual relation and respect one to the other. But that was not properly a type of Baptism, but both Baptism and that are figures and signs and lively representations of our salvation in Christ. 2. If the real presence of Christ only commendeth the sacrament, and advanceth it before the rites of the law, which in all other respects are better: by this argument Baptism still remaineth inferior to the sacraments of the law: for you affirm no real presence in Baptism, as you do in the Eucharist: and in all other respects it must needs give place to Circumcision: for the cutting of the flesh is a more lively representation of regeneration, than is the washing by water: and the flesh of man is in nature more precious than water. So by this reason, though you have won credit for the Eucharist, yet you have lost it for Baptism. 3 We answer therefore, that although the real presence be set apart, yet our sacraments are more excellent than theirs. First, the price and worth of things in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament, but they must be considered in respect of the use, to the which they are ordained by the institution. Flesh, you say, is better than bread: so is wine and milk better than water in their nature: but in Baptism water is better than they, because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy use. Secondly, the slaying of the Lamb doth more lively represent, say you, the death of Christ, than the breaking of bread. Answ. We grant, that if breaking of bread had been used in the law, it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts: but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospel, in this abundance of knowledge and instruction, being a sign of a thing already done and finished, must needs be more pregnant and lively in representation, than the kill of sacrifices in the law, which were types of things to come, the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world. Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent than theirs, in respect of the more clear light and fuller signification, which they have by the word of God, & the preaching of the Gospel joined unto them: We need not devise any other way of excellency for our sacraments, than this, which we have said, agreeable to the scriptures, 2. Cor. 4.3. Galat. 3.1. The Papists. ARgum. 2. john. 6.55. Christ saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in deed: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. First, this place must be understood not of any spiritual eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament, but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament. First, Vers. 51. The bread, saith Christ, that I will give: he speaketh of a thing to come, for the sacrament was afterward instituted: but if this bread were to be taken for his word, and the eating thereof for believing in him; in this sense the bread was given already. Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense, vers. 32. My father giveth you the true bread from heaven: & I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever, vers. 51. He saith not, he that shall eat, but, he that even now eateth. And afterward he speaketh of the time to come; The bread that I shall give, because his death and passion was not yet finished: therefore he saith, The bread that I shall give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world: But he speaketh every where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense, vers. 35.50.51.53. which cannot be understood of the sacramental eating, the sacrament being not yet instituted, but of a spiritual manducation. The Papists. SEcondly, those words being applied to the sacrament, must needs also be understood properly and literally, for the very eating of the flesh of Christ, & drinking his blood, not tropically, or figuratively. 1. The flesh of Christ, which Christ promiseth to give them to be eaten, he preferreth before the Manna, which their fathers did eat in the wilderness: the true bread which he giveth them, is more excellent than the bread of Manna. But if the bread in the sacrament do but signify the flesh of Christ, and be not it in very deed, it should be no better than Manna, which also did signify and show forth Christ, Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. Christ compareth not the spiritual substance of Manna, with his flesh and blood, but the corporal food, which being received into the belly, and not received into the heart by faith, hath no power to give eternal life. For, vers. 32. Christ saith, that Moses gave them not Manna from heaven: Ergo, he meaneth the corporal food, not the spiritual substance of Manna, for as it was a sacrament of Christ, it was heavenly bread. Again, vers. 49. Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness and died. He speaketh of the material food, for they that did Manna spiritually by faith, died not in soul. Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prove, that this place contained in the sixth chapter of john, cannot be so understood as they expound it. First, Christ speaketh not only of the sacramental eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, but generally of the spiritual participation by faith, whether in the sacrament or without, which is wrought in us by the holy Ghost. 1. If it be understood of the sacrament, than it will follow that no man can be saved, unless he do receive the sacrament: for Christ saith, vers. 53. Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you. This, I am sure, they will hardly grant, that the Eucharist also should be necessary, as they make Baptism, to salvation. 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament, then must it of necessity be ministered in both kinds, for in every place he joineth both these together, the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. Augustine also thus writeth upon these words, Tract in johan 26. Hoc est manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manner, & illum manentemin se habere. This it is to eat that flesh, and to drink that drink, to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in us, but this may be done without the sacrament, Ergo, it is not necessary to understand it of the sacrament. Secondly, though we should grant that this whole treatise john. 6. may fitly be referred to the sacrament, yet the words must be taken figuratively, for the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament, and not otherwise. 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his own words: I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst. To eat then, and to drink Christ, is to believe in him. 2 Christ understandeth another manner of eating of his flesh, than the Capernaites did. But they imagined that Christ would give his very flesh and blood to be eaten: And therefore they went away offended, and said, This is an hard saying, vers. 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erroneous conceit, saith unto them, that his words were spirit and life, that is, spiritually to be understood, verse. 63. So Augustine interpreteth those words of Christ, as if he had said, Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum, You must understand spiritually, that which I have said. You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood, In Psal. 98. which shall be shed for you. Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivisicabit vos: I have commended a certain mystery and sacrament unto you, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you. The Papists. ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament, said unto his Apostles, after he had given thanks and blessed: Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body: that is, that which is contained in this bread, or under the forms of this bread, is my very body, Bellarm. cap. 9 So that these words must needs be taken properly, not to be a trope or figure. 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flat precepts and commandments, and directory rules in obscure terms, or figurative speeches, but plainly and evidently: therefore it is not like, that Christ, being now to prescribe unto his Apostles the perpetual law and form of this sacrament, would speak obscurely. 2 Though he spoke by parables and signs to the pharisees, yet there was no cause why he should so do, none being present but his Apostles, Bellarmin. ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well, that you will now (though I think unawares) grant unto us, that the precepts and rules in scripture are set down simply and plainly: wherefore the scriptures cannot be so hard and obscure, as you would bear us in hand they are: for if the precepts and rules of faith be evidently in scripture expressed, as you seem to confess, what reason have you to keep back the people from the reading of scripture? 2 It is false that the scriptures use no figures nor tropes, in the declaration of the laws and sacraments of the Church: for saith not Saint Paul, speaking of the sacraments of the jews, Petra erat Christus, the rock was Christ, 1. Cor. 10.4. that is, signified Christ? Likewise in the 17. verse. We that are many are one bread: that is, our spiritual unity and conjunction is represented, in that we are partakers of one bread. 3 Sometimes our Saviour would speak darkly, being alone with his Apostles, thereby to stir them up more diligently to attend unto his words, as when he biddeth them beware of the leaven of the pharisees, Mark. 8.15. Yet this speech of our Saviour Christ uttered in the hearing of his Apostles, This is my body; was neither so dark nor obscure, that the Apostles need much be troubled about the understanding. Nay, many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphorical words, are uttered with greater grace, and carry a fuller sense: When Christ said, I am the door, john 10.9. I am the vine, john 15.1. he spoke by figure as he doth here, for neither was he a vine, or a door, as the bread was not his body: Yet which of the Apostles was there, that understood him not, when he called himself a vine, and a door? Neither could they doubt of our Saviour Christ's meaning here. Contra. Now on the other side, we will make it plain, that these words of Christ, are spoken tropically: 1 Where Christ saith according to Saint Luke, This cup is the new Testament in my blood, Luk. 22.23. we must needs admit a double trope or figure: for first, the cup is taken for that which was contained in the cup. Secondly, the wine in the cup was not the new Testament, but a sign of the new Testament. If then in one part of the sacrament he spoke by a figure, why not also in the other, when he saith, This is my body, that is, a lively sign and seal thereof? 2 It is no unusual phrase in the scripture, to say (this is) that is, signifieth as Genes. 17.10. Circumcision is called the covenant itself, where it was a sign only of it. And Exod. 12.11. the Lamb is called the Lords passover, which it betokened only: In the same sense Christ saith, This is my body: that is, exhibiteth and representeth unto you my body. Augustine so expoundeth these words, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Aug. count Adimant. cap. 12. Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corpus sui: Christ doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign and sacrament of his body. The Protestants. THat Christ is present with all his benefits in the sacrament, we do willingly grant, neither do we think that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signs of the body and blood of Christ, but Christ is verily by them exhibited unto us, and spiritually by faith, we are truly made partakers of his precious body & blood: not that Christ descendeth from heaven to us, but we ascend by faith and in spirit unto him: yea, we confess as much as Bernard saith, whose speech they themselves allow, In sacramento exhiberi veram carnis Christi substantiam, sed spiritualiter non carnaliter: that the very substance of Christ's flesh is exhibited unto us in the sacrament, but spiritually, not carnally. This Bellarmine acknowledgeth to be true, cap. 2. lib. 1. though he would not have the word (spiritually) to be used, lest it might be, as he saith, by us misconstrued. This then is our faith and judgement, that we are verily in this sacrament engrafted into the body of Christ, and do truly eat his flesh, and drink his blood: but all this is done spiritually only and by faith: As for their carnal eating and devouring of Christ, we utterly reject, and condemn it. Argum. 1. In the receiving of the sacrament there is a double conjunction, we are joined to Christ, & make one body also amongst ourselves: so saith S. Paul, 1. Cor. 10.16.17. We are made partakers of the body of Christ, and we that are many are one bread, and one body: but our participation with the mystical body of Christ is spiritual. Ergo, also our communication with his natural body, Fulk. in hunc locum. Arg. 2. If the body of Christ be in the sacrament, them is it eaten, & torn with the teeth: And what is eaten goeth into the belly, & is cast out into the draft, Mark. 7.19. I pray you what is now become of the body of Christ? doth it pass the same way that other meats do? Bellarm. answereth, lib. 1. cap. 11. ad argum. 5. that they are the accidents of the bread and wine which are eaten, and chawen, or rend by the teeth, & not the body of Christ: and yet the body of Christ goeth down into the stomach, but no further: but when the forms of bread & wine begin to be corrupted there, the body of Christ goeth away, Bellarm. cap. 14. Ans. 1. This is new learning, that the accidents of meat are chawen in the mouth, & not the meat itself: & that the forms only, not the substance is altered, & corrupted in the stomach. Say also that men are nourished with accidents & not with the substance: If the priest chance to drink too deep of the chalice, and so become drunk, I pray you what is it, that maketh him so light headed? Is it, think you, the accidents only of wine? Surely a drunken man would not say it. If a Mouse chance to creep into your pixe, and fill her hungry belly with your God-amight: what is it that the Mouse feedeth upon? trow you they be accidents only? for you say that the consecrated host goeth no further than the stomach: and yet it is too much that the housel of Christians should be housed in a mouse's belly. These are but ridiculous and light questions, yet such, as have troubled your gravest and sagest heads, and remain unanswered. 2. Bellarmin. denieth, that the body of Christ being eaten, goeth any further than the stomach: But our Rhemists go further; they say, that we are made a piece of his body and blood: They should rather have said, that his body and blood is made a piece of us, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 10. sect. 5. being converted into our substance. But silly men, we pity them: If we should press them still with these questions, they would sooner run mad, then find out any reasonable and sober answer for us. Argum. 3. Christ in his flesh is ascended up to heaven, and there must remain till his coming again, Act. 3.21. Again he saith, The poor you shall have always, but me always you cannot have, Mark. 14. Ergo, Christ being now in his humanity in heaven, cannot be present in the sacrament upon earth. Bellarmine answereth, that the carnal presence of Christ doth not draw him out of heaven: his natural body remaineth there still: yet by his omnipotent power, he can make his body to be in many places at once, cap. 14. Ans. If Christ's body be in heaven and in earth, and in many places at once; it must either be his own natural body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, or he must every day create himself a new body: but this were to too absurd to be granted, that every day there should be a new Christ. Neither can the first be admitted: for a natural body hath a natural presence: but so hath not Christ's body in the Sacrament: for it is not there naturally, being without shape or form, neither visible nor sensible. And how can it stand with the property of a true natural body, to be in a thousand places at once? for so must Christ's needs be, and in more too, seeing he is kept and hanged up in every popish Church. And further, if totus Christus, whole Christ, be in the Sacrament, both with his body and soul: you must either grant, that there are many whole Christ's, seeing he is in many places at once: or else if there be but one whole Christ, his humanity must be dispersed every where as his Godhead is: and so are you against your wills become Ubiquitaries. Harken what Augustine saith: Ad Dardan. epistol. 57 Cavendum est ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus: We must take heed we do not so maintain the divine nature of the man Christ, that we take away the nature of his body. Argum. 4. The fathers in the law did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink in their Sacraments that we do, 1. Corinth. 10.2.3. but they did not eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood, but only spiritually by faith: Ergo, no more do we. Argum. 5. There remained wine still after the consecration and distribution amongst the Apostles: for Christ saith, He will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, Math. 26.29. So S. Paul calleth the other element bread after the consecration, 1. Corinth. 10.17. We that are many are one bread, because we are partakers of one bread. Likewise, cap. 11.26. Ergo, there remaineth still bread and wine in the Sacrament. And therefore no body of Christ: for they cannot be there both together, as they teach. Lastly, we must understand, that this their devised and forged opinion of the real presence of Christ, is of no antiquity in the Church: neither was there any question about it for a 1000 years after Christ, till the time of Berengarius, who lived about Anno. 1060. who was sore troubled, for maintaining the truth against the carnal presence, and under Pope Leo the 9 and Nicholas the 2. was constrained twice to recant: Fox. p. 1152 yet there was no public law or decree made in the Church concerning transubstantiation, till the Council of Laterane, which was held under Pope Innocent the 3. Anno. 1215. And that this gross opinion favoureth not a whit of antiquity, Epistol. it may appear by the resolute judgement of Augustine: Sacramenta ex similitudine ipsarum rerum nomina habent, secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, etc. The Sacraments, because of some likeness, do bear the names of the things themselves: as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner called his body. Commentar. in Psal. 3 Christus corporis sui figuram discipulis commendavit: Christ did commend to his disciples a figure of his body. Quid paras dentem & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti? Why dost thou make ready thy teeth & thy belly? Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten him. Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiam carnis recte dictum est discipulis, Me semper non habebitis: Accord to the presence of his Majesty we have Christ always: according to his carnal presence, it was truly said to his disciples, You cannot have me always. By these and many such places in this ancient father, it is manifest, that in those days there was no such opinion held of the carnal presence. AN APPENDIX TO THIS QUESTION, WHETHER it stand with the power and will of God, that Christ's body should be carnally present in the Sacrament. The Papists. 114. Error. THere are two difficulties or impossibilities, which do hinder the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: First, it would follow, that a natural body, such as Christ's is, might be in two places at once: for they say, that it is in heaven, and in the Eucharistal at once. Secondly, that a natural body may be in a place, and yet not occupy or fill a place: for if Christ's body be in the Sacrament, it occupieth no place: the compass of a thin and round cake is not answerable to the proportion of Christ's body. Notwithstanding both these difficulties, it is agreeable both to the power and good pleasure of God, that the body of Christ should be included in the Sacrament, Bellarm. Argum 1. It is possible for the body of Christ to be in many places at once, and it also standeth with his will: as Act. 9.4. Christ appeared to Saul, either upon the earth, or in the air next to the earth: for how could he either hear the voice of Christ sitting in heaven, or see the light so far off? Ergo, Christ was in two places: he appeared to Paul upon earth, and he was at the same time in heaven, from whence he shall not move till the day of judgement, Bellarm. de sacram. Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 3. Rhemist. Act. 9 sect. 1. Ans. First, the text is plain, that Christ spoke from heaven, from whence the light shined, vers. 3. he was neither in the air nor upon the earth. Secondly, do you make question, whether Paul could see a light, or hear a voice from so far; 23. seeing that the Sun, whose body is so far distant from us, doth disperse his beams over the face of the earth; and the voice of the thunder is hear●●ery far? Will ye deny Christ to have that power, which we see to be in his creatures? Thirdly, and why was it not as possible, that Christ from heaven should be heard of Paul, as he was seen of Stephen sitting on the right hand of God? Act. 7.56. Argum. 2. The body of Christ may be where it pleaseth him, and yet shall not need any natural place, or occupy any room: he is able to bring a Camel through the eye of a needle, Math. 20.26. He also came through the doors in to his Apostles, rose out of the sepulchre thorough the stone, was borne, his mother's womb being shut: therefore he may as well, and is no doubt, present under the shapes of bread and wine in the Sacrament, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 3. de. Sacram. cap. 6. Ans. 1. Christ showeth in that place, that it is as impossible for a rich man, that is high minded, and trusteth in his riches, to enter into heaven, as for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle: but it is possible with God to give rich men humble and lowly minds, and so make them fit for his kingdom, as to make the Camel less, and so draw him thorough a needle. It is not proved out of this place, that God can or will draw the huge body of a Camel through a needle, remaining still of that bigness: no more than that it is possible for God, to bring a proud, rich, arrogant man to heaven, his affections not altered: both these are impossible to God, because they are contrary to his will and ordinance: the one is against the law of justice, to bring a wicked man to heaven: the other against the law of nature. 2. For the other three examples: it is not proved out of scripture, that the body of Christ pierced the doors, the grave, stone, or his mother's womb: although the doors were found shut after Christ's entrance, the grave covered, and his mother remained a Virgin still: for all these passages might give place for a while to the body of Christ, and return again to their place: as the red sea was divided till the Israelites passed, and afterward the waters came together again. And concerning the last instance of the birth of Christ, it is certain out of the scriptures, that Christ opened the womb of his mother in his birth, Luk. 2.23. Hitherto therefore they have proved nothing. The Protestants. Our adversaries do falsely charge us to say, that God can do no more than he hath done, or will do, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. This we say: that Christ is almighty, and yet can do nothing against his own will, his word, or glory: as to dishonour his glorious body, and to bring it within the compass of a piece of bread, that it may be devoured of cats, dogs, rats, mice, or which is worse, to be eaten of wicked men the members of the devil: although the question be not so much between us, what Christ is able to do of his absolute power, but what he will do according to his word, Fulk. Math. 17. sect. 1. Argum. 1. It standeth neither with the power or will of God, to do contrary to his word: For it is impossible that God should lie, Hebr. 6.18. And this thing, not to lie, is not a want of power, but a sign of greater power in God. But it is plainly declared in scripture, that Christ hath a true natural body, and is in all things like unto us, Hebr. 2.17. Therefore neither can his body, being a true human body, as ou●s are, be in many places at once: neither can it choose but occupy that room and place where it is. The Angel said, He is risen, he is not here, Math. 28.6: but it had been no good argument, to say, he is risen and gone to another place, and therefore he is not here, if so be the body of Christ might be in many places at once. The scripture than hath defined it, that Christ's body is in one certain place: wherefore to say, that Christ hath a true natural body, and yet retaineth not the natural properties of a body, is to speak contradictories, that he hath, and hath not a true natural body: and this were to make God a liar. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 11. Augustine saith of Christ: Secundum corporalem praesentiam, simul in sole, luna, cruse, esse non potest: Christ according to his corporal presence, cannot be in the Sun, the Moon, and upon the Cross all at one time. And concerning the other point, he writeth thus: Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, Epistol. 57 & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt: Take away space of place from bodies, and they shall be no where, and if they be in no place, then are they not at all. Argum. 2. The real and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is a thing superfluous, needles, and unprofitable. First, the favour of God in the remission of sins through Christ, is as well sealed unto us in Baptism, as in the Lord's Supper▪ what need then the carnal presence in the one more than in the other? Secondly, that Christ is in body present in the Sacrament, is not perceived by any sense: for they neither taste him, see him, nor feel him: it must be then a work of faith: but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent, as being supposed in this manner to be present: Ergo, this kind of presence is needles. Argum. 3. It is an inglorious, unworthy and unseemly thing, that the glorious and impassable body of Christ, should be enclosed in the forms of bread and wine, devoured and chawed, eaten and gnawed of mice, subject to mould and rottenness, to be spilled upon the ground, burnt in the fire: for all these inconveniences must needs follow upon the carnal presence. Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the body of Christ, them it was for him to be carried in his mother's womb, to be swathed in swaddling bands, and to be subject to injuries which were done to his body upon earth. Ans. First, as though there be the like reason of the passable body of Christ, while he lived in the world, which was buffeted, whipped, pierced with nails, crucified; and of his glorious and impassable body now, that it may in like manner be rend and divided. Secondly, neither was it possible that Christ's passable body should be subject to the like infirmities, as to rottenness, corruption, consumption in the fire, as his body is now in the Sacrament. If it were then verified in Christ, Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption: for his body did not putrify or corrupt in the grave: much more is it true in the glorious body of Christ, that it cannot suffer any such things: How then are you not ashamed to affirm, that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament, the very body and blood of Christ: seeing those elements, if they be kept long, will wax sour, and mouldy, and fall to corruption? which things once to think of the glorious body of Christ, were great impiety. Leave off for shame then these your gross opinions, so much derogatory to the glory and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation. The Papists. IF any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration; or shall deny that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and converted into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the forms and shows only of bread and wine remaining, which singular and miraculous conversion the Church calleth Transubstantiation; let him be accursed, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 13. can. 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra. euchar. cap. 19 Rhemist. Matth. 17. sect. 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his body marvelously in the Mount, as we read, Math. 17. sect. 1. Ergo, he is able to exhibit his body under the forms of bread and wine, Rhemist. Ans. First, your argument followeth not, Christ could give a glorious form to his passable body: Ergo, he can take away the essential properties of his natural body, and yet keep a true body stil. Or thus, Christ could glorify his body not yet glorified: Ergo, he can or will dishonour his glorious impassable body: by enclosing it under the forms of base creatures to be devoured of dogs and mice: which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heaven. Secondly, the question is not so much of Christ's power, as of his will: therefore you conclude not aright, Christ is able to do it: Ergo, he will. Argum. 2. He that seethe water turned into wine by the power of Christ, need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his body, Rhemist. joh. 2. sect. 2. Ans. First, when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conversion, as we have for this miracle, we will give ear unto you. Secondly, and when it shall appear to the senses, that the bread is changed into flesh, as the water was known to be turned into the wine, by the colour and taste: we shall then no more doubt of this conversion of the bread, than they did of the other of water. Thirdly, if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures: what reason have you to give such an omnipotent power to every priest, with a few words to do as much, as Christ himself could when he was present? Fourthly, all this proveth but an ability and power in Christ, not a will or purpose, to work any such change or conversion. Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be changed, yet the forms remain still for these causes. First, because if the forms also should be changed, there should be no sensible sign left, and so no Sacrament. Secondly, the faith of the receiver is the better tried this way: who believeth the flesh of Christ to be present, though he see it not. Thirdly, Christ would not have the forms altered, because man abhorreth to eat human flesh in the proper shape, Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First, your first reason is insufficient: for neither do the bare and naked signs or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament, but the substance of them: for between the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented, there ought to be some conveniency and agreement: namely, as the body is nourished by bread and wine, so doth the soul feed upon the body and blood of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish us, but the substance: Ergo, not the accidents but the substance is the visible sign. Likewise in Baptism, it is not the form or outward accident of water, that is the sign, but the substance of water that washeth. 2. It is a more lively operation of faith, to believe in Christ absent in heaven, then present in earth, although he appear not to the senses. And Christ is indeed properly the object of faith, as he is now in heaven: Hope (saith the Apostle) entereth into that which is within the vail, whither our forerunner jesus is entered for us, Heb. 6.19. Faith and hope therefore do lead us to things within the vail, that is, things in heaven, and not upon the earth. 3. What a strange saying is this, that Christ giveth his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament, yet hideth it under the forms of bread and wine, lest men should abhor to eat it? for is it to be thought, that Christ would command any unseemly thing, or contrary to humanity? How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstain from strangled & blood, Act. 15. when as, by your doctrine, they did eat daily in their assemblies, the raw flesh and blood of Christ? And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his own rule, He that doth the truth (saith he) cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest? john. 3.21. But Christ now flieth the light, & shrowdeth himself under the shape of bread and wine, and will not show his flesh. These therefore are but silly causes which you have rendered, why Christ would have the substance of bread only changed, and not the accidents. The Protestants. AS the name of transubstantiation is strange, and newly devised: so is the meaning thereof most unreasonable: that in the Sacrament, the substance of bread should be converted into the body of Christ, the forms only remaining: An opinion contrary to scripture, reason and common sense. Argum. 1. As Christ said, Math. 26. (pointing to the bread) This is my body: so he saith, john. 6.35. I am the bread: but in this place he was not changed into bread: why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body? for the speech is all one. Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration, is subject to divers changes and alterations, and so likewise the wine: for they may be boiled and made hot, they may be infected with poison: for it is certain that Victor the 3. Pope, and Henry the 7. Emperor, were poisoned with the Sacrament: the wine may wax sour and turn to vinegar: the bread may putrify and breed worms: Ergo, the substance of bread and wine remain still: for the accidents cannot be subject to such alterations: and to say that Christ's body may be thus handled, it were great impiety, Argum. Pet. Martyris. Bellarmine answereth: Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti, in quo desinunt esse illae species: God supplieth some other matter in the very instant, when the forms begin to be changed, Cap. 24. argum. 6. Ans. Is not here good gear, think you, that if a man should come to poison the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, which are already consecrate, and made the body of Christ, God should supply by a miracle some other matter for him to work upon, and so God himself should be accessary unto that wicked act? Or if a silly mouse should be so bold as gnaw upon a consecrate Host, that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appointed: and so God shall make miracles for mice? And why, I pray you, may not the substance of bread still remain, as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof? Arg. 3. When Christ spoke these words, Hoc est corpus meum, the bread was transubstantiate, before, or after, or while the words were spoken. Before, they will not say, for the elements were not then consecrate: nor after, for them Christ's words, This is my body, had not been true in that instant when they were spoken. Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking: for than should it not have been done all at once, but successively, and one part after another, as the words were spoken one after another. But this is also contrary to the opinion of the Papists, that would have it done all together. Argum. 4. It is against the nature and property of accidents and external forms to be without a subject, or substance, wherein they should rest: such are the whiteness and roundness of the bread, the redness and sweetness of wine: if bread be gone, what is become of the roundness and whiteness, and so of the wine. If a man ask what round or white thing is this, or what red and sweet thing is this, showing the cup: what shall be answered? we cannot say, it is bread, or wine: for there is none left. And I am sure, they will not say, that the body of Christ is either round or white, or such like: and yet somewhat there must needs be, that must take denomination of these accidents. Argum. 5. You say, the very flesh of Christ that did hang upon the Cross, is in the Sacrament: but that cannot be: for that flesh Christ took of the Virgin Mary: this sacramental flesh is made of bread: Ergo, it is not the same flesh which was crucified upon the Crosse. Bellarm. The body of Christ is made of bread, but not as any matter or material cause thereof, but as the wine was made of water by our Saviour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water? was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine? for one of these three changes and mutations it must needs have: first, either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing, and so the wine was created of nothing, which I am sure you will not grant: secondly, or else there was a mixture of wine and water, the one being mingled with the other: which is likewise false, for it was very good and perfect wine: neither, I think, will you easily admit, that the body of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament. Thirdly, there remaineth but the third kind of change, that is, the conversion of one substance into another, as the water was changed into wine: and so is the substance of bread converted into the substance of Christ's body, if you will have any change at all: and thus Christ hath gotten by your help a breaden body: another from that, which he took of the flesh of the Virgin. Lastly, the diversity of opinions, which this gross conceit of the carnal presence of Christ hath hatched, do easily show and demonstrate unto us, what we are to think of this popish doctrine. Some do hold, that the elements do still remain in their own nature in the Sacrament, and that together with them the body of Christ is carnally present. Others do teach, that there remaineth no more bread and wine, but only the very natural body of Christ: of each opinion there are three sorts. First, of them that hold the elements not to be changed. 1. Some are of opinion, that the body of Christ and the elements are locally joined together, either for that instant only, or else because of the ubiquity and omnipresence of Christ's humanity: of which opinion are the Lutherans. 2. Some there were, that thought only so much of the bread to be changed into the body of Christ, as was received of the faithful: and that part which the wicked received, to be bread still. 3. Others taught, that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the person of Christ, even as his humanity: so that Christ was bread by consecration, as he was man by his incarnation: an horrible and monstrous opinion, which is fathered upon Rupertus the Abbot. johannes Parisiensis also came near this opinion, who likewise affirmed, that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ, and united unto him, yet not immediately, as the other taught, but by the mediation and means of the humanity of Christ. Secondly, of those that maintain the conversion of the elements. First, some would have the form only of bread changed not the matter, as Durandus. Secondly, some contrariwise, would have the matter altered, and the form to remain. Thirdly, the jesuits affirm the bread wholly in substance, both in matter and form to be changed, the outward forms and accidents only remaining. ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram, Eucharist. cap. 11. Thus men, when they begin once to leave the truth, the Lord leaveth them to themselves, and they run mad in their own inventions, not finding any end: and so it is justly come upon them, as S. Paul saith of the heathen: Because when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, neither were thankful: they became vain in their own imaginations, and their foolish hart was full of darkness: when they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom. 1.21.22. We therefore leaving these shallow pits of human inventions, which will hold no water, will betake us to the fountain of truth. This then, to conclude, is our definitive sentence, and full determination, according to the Scriptures, that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament, neither by conversion of the bread into his body, either wholly, or in part, nor by assumption of the bread to the unity of his person; nor yet by the conjunction of his body and bread together▪ but he doth verily exhibit himself, with all his benefits, spiritually by faith, to be eaten and drunk of the worthy receiver, as we have sufficiently proved before out of the Scriptures. THE THIRD QUESTION, WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated, be a Sacrament, though it be neither eaten nor drunk. The Papists. THe elements in the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, being once consecrate, error 116 which say they, is done by the prolation of those words, hoc est corpus meum, This is my body, whether they be received or not at that instant, but be reserved and kept in boxes, and pixes, and other vessels of the Church, for days, weeks, months, to be carried solemnly to those that are sick, and to be applied to other uses: are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 4.7. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Argum. 1. Christ's words which were spoken over the bread, This is my body, were true as soon as he brought them forth, before he said, Take, eat, and so likewise of the cup: therefore it was a Sacrament, before they did receive and eat it, and had been a Sacrament still, if it had not been received at all at that time. Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Those words of Christ, This is my body, were not spoken before he broke the bread and distributed it: but first as S. Math. setteth it down, he broke the bread and gave it to his Disciples, saying: Take, eat, and then follow those words, This is my body. Math. 26.26. which seem to have been uttered even in that instant, when they took the bread, and began to eat it. Secondly, the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise, partly of a precept: the promise is this, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body: the precept, Accipite, manducate, Take, eat. Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise, than we perform the condition: unless therefore accordingly we do take and eat it, it is not the body of Christ. The Protestants. THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the use thereof: so that, though some form of words be pronounced over it, if it be not received and eaten and drunk, it is no sacrament: neither is that which remaineth after the distribution, the Eucharist being ended, either of the bread or wine, any part of the sacrament, but so much only as is taken and used. Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament, unless it be used according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it: but to the institution it belongeth on the behalf of the Minister, to bless, break, and distribute it: on the behalf of the communicants to take, 1 Cor. 11.24.26. eat, and drink it: in them all, thereby to show the Lords death, and to do it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by using the words of benediction only, but by the whole action: for how can they show the Lords death, or do it in remembrance of Christ, unless they take, and eat? Ergo, if it be not so used, it is no Sacrament. Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike, and of one and the selfsame kind, there is one way of instituting and consecrating both: but the water in baptism is no part of the Sacrament, but during the solemn action of baptizing▪ afterward it returneth to the common use, so much as is not used. Ergo, it is so also in the Eucharist: for as Christ saith to his Apostles: Ite, baptizate: Go and baptise, so that it was no Sacrament, unless some body were baptised: even so he saith, Accipite, manducate, Take, eat. No Sacrament then, unless it be received and eaten. And here I pray you, let it be noted, how well the jesuits agree amongst themselves: our Rhemists do commend the reserving also of the water in baptism, and carrying of it home to give it the diseased to drink, annot. jam. 5. sect. 5. Bellar. saith, that Res permanens in baptismo, That the thing permanent in Baptism, that is, water, which remaineth, is not the sacrament, but ipsa actio, the action of baptizing itself, and alloweth only the Eucharist to be reserved, and remain a Sacrament, Etiam extra usum, Without the use thereof, Bellar. li. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 3. But we have showed already, that both the Sacraments are hallowed and sanctified alike, and that both in the one and the other, the use only and present action according to Christ's institution, maketh the Sacrament. In Augustine's time some used to receive the Communion daily: but upon the Sabbath or Lords day, it was commonly received of all: Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere, nec laudo, nec reprehendo, De ecclesi. dogmatib. cap. 54. omnib. tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et horror. Every day to receive the Eucharist, I neither commend, nor dispraise it but every Lord's day I do persuade men and exhort all to communicate. It should seem then, that in those days there was no such superstitious reservation of the Sacrament, seeing every day, or at the least every Sabbath it was administered. THE FOURTH QUESTION, CONCERNING the elements or material part of the Sacrament, namely bread and wine. The Papists. 1. The bread which is used in the Sacrament, aught to be unleavened: because it is most agreeable to Christ's institution, who made the sacrament of unleavened error 117 bread, for he instituted his last Supper, after he had eaten the Passeover: which was to be eaten with sweet and unleavened bread, according to the Lawa, neither was there any leaven to be found in Israel for seven days together: and not only Christ, but all the jews at that time did keep the Passeover: and the next day after, in the which Christ suffered, was the first solemn festival day of the seven, being the fifteenth day of the month, as it was commanded, Leviticus 23.5. Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 7. The Protestants. 1. WE deny not, but that Christ used unleavened bread, at the institution of his last Supper, having immediately before eaten the Paschall Lamb, which we doubt not but he kept, according to the Law, with sweet bread: yet in the time they are greatly deceived, affirming, that all the jews eat the Passeover like wise over even, and crucified Christ on the morrow, which should have been, and was unto them (as they say) a chief festival day. The truth is, that Christ eat the Passeover the 14, day at even, as it is appointed in the Law: but the jews had a contrary tradition: they would in no wise keep two festival days together: and therefore because the sixteenth day was their Sabbath, they would not have the feast of unleavened bread upon the fifteenth day (though it were so appointed by the law) to avoid the concurrence of two holy days together, but deferred it till the next day, which was their Sabbath, and eat the Passeover the eeve before, which was the 15. day at night; whereas Christ reforming that abuse, kept the Passeover the eeve before according to the Law, that is, the 14. at night: It appeareth then, that the next day following, which we call Friday, wherein Christ was put to death, was not kept of the jews as a holy day. First, the text saith, they would not put Christ to death upon the feast day, fearing the tumult of the people, Mark. 14.2. Secondly, if they had kept it holy as the Law commanded, they should have done no servile labour therein, that is, no work of the body, Leuitic. 23.7. But what could be a more servile work, then to crucify Christ, to carry the Cross, and pitch it in the ground, and such like; which the jews would not have done upon that day, which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabbath? It is also called the preparation of the Sabbath, Mark. 15.43. Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabbath what was needful: but such works of preparation could not have been done in that great festival day. Augustine also saith, that the day of Christ's suffering was not Pascha, sed praeparatio Paschae, It was not the Pasch, but the preparation to it: De consen. Euangel. li. 3. cap. 13. it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the jews, the day of Christ's passion, neither that they did eat the paschal Lamb the same eeve that Christ did, but the night following. If they shall object that place, Mark. 14.12. where the Evangelist saith, It was the first day of unleavened bread, when Christ eat his passover: and therefore all the jews began then to eat sweet bread. We answer, that the Evangelist hath relation unto the right time of keeping the Passeover, as it was prescribed by the Law, and observed by Christ: not to the corrupt custom of the jews. Wherefore we grant that Christ might eat unleavened bread, but not in such manner and order, as they say. Secondly, it was not of the substance of the institution to eat unleavened bread, no more then to eat it at night, and to receive it sitting, we are not more bound to the one, then to the other. Again, Christ used unleavened bread, because it was the usual bread at that time: so we do use that which is the usual bread in our time. And S. Paul speaketh of such bread, as was usual among the Gentiles, when he saith, The bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10.17. Ergo, ordinary bread and leavened to be used, not unleavened. The Papists. 2. COncerning the other element of wine, which is used in the sacrament, error 118 they say it is to be mixed with water, and they impudently condemn all those Churches, that do not mix water with wine, in the Sacrament. Argum. Water gushed out together with blood, out of the side of Christ. Ergo, wine and water is to be used together in the Eucharist, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 10. The Protestants. 1. WE deny not, but that of ancient time, in hot Countries, especially where their wine was strong, they used to mix water with wine, in their common drink, and thereupon they so used it in the sacrament: but it was never generally the practice of the East Countries so to do: for the Armenians and Iberians used not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration, Fulk. nnot. 1. Corinth. 1●. sect. 10. Secondly, Be it that this mixture of wine were convenient to be used: you cannot make such a matter of necessity of it, as to charge them with heresy, and denounce damnation against them that keep not that custom, De connsecrat. distin. 2. in glossa. especially seeing your Canonists and schoolmen do grant that it is de honestate tant●m, of decency only, not of necessity. And yet we are feign to drink mingled wine many times against our wills: for the Minister need put in no water, it is mixed to his hands many times. The Vintner's craft standeth very well with popish profession. Thirdly, we hold it rather to be a superstitious custom and contrary to Christ's institution: for he in his last supper gave wine, not water to be drunk, for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine, which is wine and not water. Fourthly, the water and blood which issued out of Christ's side, signify no such thing, but rather as S. john expoundeth them: by water, is betokened our washing from our sins, whereof Baptism is a pledge: by blood, the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sins, whereof the other sacrament is a ●eale, 1. john. 5.6. This is that jesus Christ, that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood. By the which words the Apostles meaning is not, that by the water and blood, which were shed upon the cross, we should understand the Sacraments of the Church: but those spiritual graces, whereof the Sacraments are lively signs, namely the satisfaction and ransom of our sins by Christ's blood, and our ablution and washing from the same. Augustine picketh out no such fancy out of this mystery as you do, for the mixture of wine and water: but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church. E Christi latere dormientis in cruse promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae, in Psal. 138. Out of Christ's side dying upon the Cross, issued the sacraments of the Church: namely, Baptism, and the Eucharist. He draweth not both water and wine to signify one sacrament, but applieth them to both. THE FIFTH QUESTION, OF THE words of consecration. The Papists. THese words (say they) This is my body, to be spoken over the bread, and the error 119 like over the wine, This is the new testament in my blood, are the very forms of the Sacraments and words of consecration: which being uttered, immediately the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ: wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people, but they are only consecratory words, to be pronounced over the elements: Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 13. Argu. If these were not the only words of consecration This is my body, and if presently upon the uttering of these words the body of Christ was not present: then should not the words of Christ be true, Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants. 1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all, by virtue whereof the elements are converted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ, as we have before showed. A consecration we grant, which is a setting apart of the elements, which before were common, to holy uses, and by the virtue of Christ's institution, to be made unto us signs of holy things. Secondly, those are not the only words of consecration, This is my body, and, This is the cup of my blood, and yet Christ's words shall be true: for we must not dismember the sentence: Christ saith, Take, eat ye, this is my body: it is then made his body to be taken and eaten: by taking then and eating, the elements also are consecrated, not only by saying of the words: ye must not then divide the words of the institution, for than they shall no more consecrate, then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words, as, This is, or, My body, and leave out the rest. Thirdly, that these are not the only words of consecration, it appeareth, because both the bread was broken and distributed, and the Cup also, before Christ spoke those words, as Math. 26.26. for first Christ saith, Take, eat, and, Take and drink, before he said▪ either, This is my body, or, This is my blood: neither can ye well tell yourselves, which are your consecratory words for the Cup, whether those that Matthew setteth down, This is my blood of the new testament: or as Luke hath, This Cup is the new testament in my blood. Nay, Bellarmine useth an other form beside these: Hic est calix●s●● guinis▪ This is the Cup of my blood, Bellarm. cap. 13. Fourthly, we conclude then, that not only these words, but all the rest belonging to the institution, are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament, both to instruct the people, that they may know the right use of the Sacrament: and they help also with the rest of the whole action, of taking, eating, drinking, praying, thanksgiving, to consecrate and make the Sacrament, as we have showed more at large before: controu. 11. quest. 1. part 2. to that place we refer the Reader. THE sixth QUESTION, OF THE PROPER effect and use of the Lords Supper. The Papists. THey do generally hold, that this Sacrament was not properly ordained error 120 for remission of sins, neither that the Sacrament hath any such use: but it serveth only as a preservative against sin, Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 5. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 17. Secondly, they teach, that faith is not sufficient to prepare us for the Communion: and although a man be never so contrite, quantumcunque se contritos existiment, yet they must be thoroughly purged and absolved from their mortal sins, before they come to communicate, Concil. Trident. sess. 13. canon. 11. Bellarm. ibid. Argum. 1. They that receive the Communion, are one body as they are partakers of one bread, 1. Cor. 10.17. but they which are in any grievous and deadly sin, are not lively members of Christ, and of his mystical body: therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Neither do we affirm, that men ought rashly & presumptuously to come to the Lords table, but to repent them thoroughly of their sins, and to have a steadfast and lively faith in Christ, who cannot be said, thus preparing themselves, to remain in their sins: neither yet are they so fully acquitted of them, that they need not to receive the Sacrament to their comfort, and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sins. Secondly, wherefore all this hindereth not, but that they should be true members of Christ's body, even having a troubled conscience, and labouring under the burden of their sins: for the weak and sick parts of the body, are they therefore no parts at all, because of their infirmities? Augustine saith very well, Cont. 2. epi. Pelag. 3.3. Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecunque peccata, peccant enim et filii Dei: In quibus non est fides, filii sunt Diaboli: Every sin maketh not a man the child of the devil, for the Children of God also sin: but they which have no faith, are the sons of the Devil. Ergo, all sins cut not men off from the body of Christ, but only the want of faith: they then that have sinned, and do repent them and come with faith, are still the sons of God, and members of Christ's body. Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper use and end of diverse Sacraments: but Baptism is received for remission of sins. Ergo, the Eucharist is not for that end, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. The death of Christ, and so remission of sins purchased by the same, is properly represented unto us in both Sacraments: yet in a diverse respect: for as to be borne is one thing, to be fed and nourished is another: yet both work the same thing in the body, though diversly: for the birth giveth life, meat and drink preserveth it: the same difference is between Baptism and the Lords Supper, they both are seals unto us of our justification, in the remission of sins by Christ: but by Baptism we are initiated, regenerate and borne anew, and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirm, increase, and nourish our faith, already begun and planted in us, for the remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's passion. The Protestants. FIrst, we do truly affirm and teach, that an especial and principal use of the Eucharist or Communion, is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sins: and yet we deny not, but that it hath other uses beside: for as in Baptism not only the washing away of our sins is showed forth, but it also betokeneth our dying to sin, and rising to newness of life, Ro. 6.3.4. So in the Lord's supper whole Christ with all his benefits is exhibited unto us, as it is a pledge unto us, not only of remission of sins, but that Christ is become our righteousness and sanctification, 1. Cor. 1.30. that he will assist us with his spirit, and replenish our hearts with grace, joh. 4.14. yea, the spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, is a pledge unto us of the resurrection, and of life eternal, joh. 6.54. But that amongst the rest, it also assureth us of remission of sins, thus it is proved. Argum. Christ after S. Matthew saith, This is the blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for remission of sins, Math. 26.28. But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sins, jere. 31.34. Yea our Saviour setteth it down in plain terms: for why else should our Saviour make express mention of forgiveness of sins, if this sacrament did not serve for that use? Secondly, we do hold, that to have a lively faith in the promises of God, with repentance for our sins, and a full purpose to amend our lives, is a sufficient preparation for the Communion: and that this sacrament is a sovereign remedy for a troubled conscience. Neither ought men to refrain from the Communion, till they have fully satisfied for their sins, as the Papists teach, and are cleared in their conscience of all their sins: for so, few or none at all, should be admitted to the Lords table: but in whom faith hath already wrought repentance in some measure, he may safely receive the sacrament for his further comfort, and assurance of remission of sins. Argum. john. 6.35. He that believeth in me, saith Christ, shall never thirst: S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselves, 1. Corin. 11.28. which is nothing else, as himself expondethu it, then to prove whether they be in the faith, 2. Cor. 13.5. Ergo, the examination or trial of faith, is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table. Augustine saith, Ad Deum acceditur, fide sectando, cord inhiando, charitate currando. We come or have access unto God in following him by faith, seeking him in our heart, and running to him with love, In Psalm. 33. contion. 2. Ergo, by faith we have access unto God, Rom. 5.2. but a lively faith, which worketh by love, Galath. 5.6. THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE manner to be observed in receiving the communion. The Papists. 1 THey hold it in no wise lawful for Christians, otherwise then fasting to error 121 receive the communion: and that they ought to eat nothing before they do communicate, unless it be in a case of great necessity, Concil. Constantiens. sess. 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. the Eucharist. cap. 22. ratione. 4. The Protestants. 1 WHat they here understand by necessity, it may be doubted, seeing they themselves will not grant the like necessity to be in the Eucharist, as they say there is of Baptism: All sacraments, we grant, are necessary, that is, profitable, expedient, requisite, so often as they may be had: But none so necessary, that the want thereof unto a faithful man, that in heart doth wish and desire them, can be any hindrance to his salvation. 2 That it is lawful for any man to eat before he come to the communion, if his stomach be weak, and not able to fast so long (for otherwise, if a man can abstain, we wish him so to do rather) Saint Paul showeth, writing to the Corinthians, 1. cap. 11.34. If any man be hungry, let him eat at home. Some of them, he saith, came hungry, some drunken, vers. 21. the Apostle commendeth neither, but telleth them, if they be hungry, they have houses to eat in. Again, in that our Saviour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament, it doth evidently declare unto us, that it is no sin to eat or drink before we receive the sacrament. Augustine saith, Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus: Epist. 118. cap. 7. We compel none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while, or after dinner, neither dare we forbidden any so to do: so he maketh it a thing indifferent, to communicate fasting or otherwise. The Papists. 2 THey bind the people only once in the year to receive the communion error 122 at Easter time, and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to do, Concil. Trident. sess. 13. can. 9 The Protestants. 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practice of the Apostles, whom the Rhemists confess to have ministered the sacrament to the Christians daily, Annotat. Act. 2. sect. 6. So expounding the words of the text, They continued daily in breaking of bread. 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Paul's rule, who speaketh of often communicating: Do this, saith he, as oft as you drink it, 1. Corinth. 11.25. For seeing the eating of that bread, and drinking of that cup, is nothing else, but a showing forth of the Lords death till he come: who seethe not, that it ought oftener than once or twice in the year to be received, seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembered, and showed forth? 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldly reprehend their custom that content themselves with once receiving in the year: Si panis quotidianus est, cur post annum illum sumas? accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit: If it be thy daily bread, why dost thou take it but yearly? take that daily and continually, which may profit thee daily, In Luk. serm. 28. THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF Receiving the Sacrament in one kind. The Papists. error 123 CHristians (say they) are not bound by any commandment of GOD to receive the sacrament in both kinds, Concil. Trident. sess. 21. can. 1. And whosoever saith, that the Church hath erred or done amiss, in decreeing that lay men and the Clergy not saying Mass, should receive in the one kind, that is bread only: Or that it is lawful for them to communicate in both, contrary to the determination of the Church: let him be accursed, Concil. Trident. sess. 21. can. 2. Rhemist. john 6. sect. 11. Bellarmin. lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in every part of the sacrament, his blood by a certain concomitance is in the bread, & his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup, for otherwise Christ should be divided: But every spirit, saith the Apostle, that dissolveth jesus, is of God, 1. john. 4.3. Wherefore he that receiveth in one kind, is as well partaker of whole Christ, and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament, as if he received in both, Bellarmin. cap. 21. Ans. 1. We deny any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament: for he is not in his carnal presence with his very flesh and blood there included, as we have showed before: the bread and wine are signs only of his body and blood, and therefore Christ is not divided, they being the signs only and not the thing signified. 2 The place alleged out of Saint john is greatly abused and corrupted by them, while they choose rather to follow their old blind latin translation, than the authentical Greek text: the words in the original are, Every spirit that confesseth not jesus Christ: not, every spirit that dissolveth: And this may appear to be the true reading, by the opposition in the former verse, Every spirit that confesseth jesus, is of GOD: therefore this is the best reading, Every spirit that confesseth not jesus: as being set opposite and contrary to the other verse. Again, the Rhemists understand this place after their own reading, of the dissolving of the humanity and divinity of Christ: not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ, as Bellarm. supposeth. 3 This their device of concomitance overthwarteth the institution of Christ: For he saith, the bread is his body, the wine his blood: but by their rule, the bread is his blood, and the wine his body. And be it granted, that the blood of Christ is in the bread, yet how can any man be said to drink it in bread? We use to eat bread, not to drink bread: his blood therefore cannot be there, because it cannot be drunk there. Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30. Christ broke bread to his disciples, Act. 2.42. the Apostles broke bread: Ergo, to communicate in one kind is grounded upon the example of Christ and his Apostles, Bellarmin. lib. 4. the Eucharist. 24. Rhemist. john 6.11. And Christ saith, Whosoever shall eat this bread, shall live for ever, john 6.58. Ergo, it is sufficient to receive in one kind. Answer: 1. To the two first places, we say, that it is not necessary to understand the breaking of bread in the sacrament: but the usual bread rather, which was accustomed in their daily repasts and feasts after thanksgiving to be broken. Or, if we take it for the sacrament, the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mystery, as it is an usual phrase of speech in scripture: for otherwise we will conclude as well, that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kind, which they hold for a great absurdity, as that the other received but in one kind: But their opinion is, that although the people must communicate in one kind only, yet the Priest must consecrate both, Rhemist. annotat. john. 6. sect. 11. 2 To the second place we answer: First it is not understood of the sacramental eating of Christ, but of the spiritual manducation of him, which may be done without a sacrament: For whosoever eateth this bread, shall live for ever: but whosoever eateth the sacrament, shall not live for ever. Secondly, seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often joined in this chapter, as vers. 53.55.56. they might well know, that drinking is here to be understood, though it be not expressed. Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to be had, as in the cold Northerly countries: and therefore they cannot communicate according to the institution: whereupon that there might be an uniformity in all Churches, it is most meet that where wine may be had, they should notwithstanding be content to receive it in one kind, Bellarmin. cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconvenience in granting the cup to the people, as in spilling and shedding the wine, which after consecration is the blood of Christ, Rhemist. annot. john 6. sect. 11. Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to be had, so we find that in certain places and regions of the world there is no bread, such as Christ used, Lib. 1. cap. 27. made of wheat or the like grain: as in some places amongst the West Indians, they have a certain kind of bread made of roots called Cazabi, as Benzo witnesseth. Wherefore by this reason of uniformity, we should not communicate at all, either in bread or wine, seeing that as some countries are destitute of wine, so other are of bread: but all this not withstanding, the sacrament may be duly administered in all places in both kinds: and where they have neither bread nor wine, neither can possibly provide them, they may safely use such other elements, as do stand them in the like stead: as in the place of bread, that which cometh nearest to the use thereof: and for wine, some other precious liquor, that is to be had, as in Russia in stead of wine they use a certain drink like unto that which we call Metheglin. 2 As for the other reasons of the inconveniences in spilling the wine, shaking the cup, the hanging of it on men's beards, & other such frivolous allegations: as they were no let or hindrance, why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kinds, and the Church accordingly observed it, as we read, the Corinthians did communicate in both kinds: so ought they to be no reason, why Christians should not receive in both kinds now. The Protestants. WE hold it to be an Antichristian practice of the Church of Rome, to take away from the people the cup in the sacrament: for although they sometime minister the cup to the people, yet they use no consecration over it, neither give it as any part of the sacrament, Fulk. annotat. 1. Corinth. 4.10. sect. 4. They do therefore offer great wrong to the people of God, in depriving them of the one half of the communion. Argum. 1. john 6.53. Christ saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Here we see both eating and drinking are joined together: Ergo, Christians ought to do both. This place maketh strongly against our adversaries, who do expound it of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ. Argum. 2. Christ instituted the sacrament in both kinds, giving charge and commandment to all Christians in the same manner to celebrate it: for he saith, Drink ye all of this. If our adversaries answer, as they do, that this was spoken to the Apostles: by the like reason they may say also, that when Christ said, Take, eat; he spoke unto his Apostles, and so the people should neither receive bread and wine, but the Ministers only. Again, Saint Paul, the best expounder of our Saviour Christ, declareth the right use of the Lords Supper in both kinds for all Christians: for he writeth to the whole congregation, and Church of the Corinthians, not to the Pastors and teachers only: and to every Christian he saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, vers. 28. Argum. 3. The Priest that saith Mass, you allow to consecrate and receive in both kinds, because he must express lively the passion of Christ and the separation of his blood from his body in the same: Rhemist. annotat. john. 6.58. By the same reason all the communicants ought to receive in both kinds, because they do all show forth the death of Christ, and shedding of his blood in the sacrament: 1. Corinthian. 11.26. And seeing the cup is a sign of the blood of Christ shed for remission of sins, Math. 26.28. for as much as the thing signified, that is, the remission of sins, in the blood of Christ, is common to all faithful Christians, why should they not as well be partakers of the sign? Argum. 4. This prohibition for lay men, not to receive in both kinds, is but a late devise of the Church of Rome, not past two hundred year old, decreed no longer ago then in the Council of Constance, Fox. pag. 1150. yet after that, he Council of Basile granted the use and liberty of the cup to the Bohemians, Fox. pag. 694. Thus they take upon them to overrule men's consciences, now restraining, now again granting liberty, binding and losing at their pleasure. In Augustine's time there was no such separation of the cup from the bread: but both were indifferently used in the communion: Cum cibo & potu, saith he, id appetant homines ut neque esuriant, neque sitiant, Tract. in johan. 27. hoc veraciter non praestat, nisi iste cibus & potus, etc. As men by their meat and drink do provide, that they neither hunger nor thirst: so this spiritual meat and drink worketh the same effect in us. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing in the sasacrament is contained and signified the full and sufficient nourishment of our souls by the flesh and blood of Christ, it must needs be resembled by the outward full sufficient nourishment of our bodies, which is not by eating alone, but by eating and drinking. THE NINTH QUESTION OF THE adoration of the Eucharist. The Papists. error 124 IT was decreed in the Council of Trent, that the Eucharist should be adored even with the highest degree of worship, (Cultu latreiae) which is proper to God: that it should also be carried about in solemn processions, to be showed to the people, to be worshipped and adored of them. And whosoever holdeth the contrary, they pronounce accursed, Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 6. Argum. 1. Hebr. 1.6. Worship him all ye Angels. Ergo, Christ in the sacrament▪ and wheresoever else his person is, aught to be adored of men and Angels, Rhemist. ibid. This Saint Paul meaneth, they say, by discerning the Lords body, 1. Corinth. 11.29. that is, adoring, worshipping it, and making prayers unto it, Rhemist. ibid. Answ. 1. We deny Christ to be present in the sacrament really, corporally, substantially: therefore it is not to be adored: 2. Although the body of Christ were present in that manner under the accidents of bread and wine, yet unless Christ be so present, that the elements or the accidents of the elements be joined and united unto him in one person, as the Godhead and humanity make but one person, he is no more to be adored, than God the father is to be worshipped in the Sun or Moon, in the which he is verily present. But to say that the visible forms and elements are joined in an hypostatical union to Christ, as his humanity is to his Godhead, it is great blasphemy. 3. A reverent estimation and discerning of the lords body we grant in the sacrament; in preferring the elements before all other meats and drinks, because of their mystical signification, as we prefer the mystical washing in Baptism before all other: but to kneel, hold up the hands, and to worship a piece of bread, we count it gross and abominable Idolatry. The Protestants. THat the sacrament is not to be adored with any godly worship, but only to be duly reverenced as an holy mystery: thus we prove it by the word of God. Argum. 1. In the first instituting of the sacrament, the Apostles received it sitting, not kneeling, by taking of it, not lifting up their hands to it. Ergo, they did not adore it, neither is it by us to be adored. Again Christ commandeth us, only to Take, and eat and drink, and to do all in remembrance of him: the sacrament therefore was appointed to be eaten and drunken, not to be carried about, or to be gazed upon, or to be kneeled unto. Argum. 2. Christ, as we have showed, is no otherwise present in the Eucharist, then in Baptism. But the water in Baptism is not to be adored: Ergo, neither the bread in the sacrament. Augustine did not so much as dream of any adoration of the sacrament: A Cerere & Libero Paganorum dijs, longè absumus, quamus panis & calicis sacramentum nostro ritu amplectimur: We do not worship the heathenish Gods of corn and wine, Ceres and Bacchus, although after our manner we embrace the sacrament of the bread and of the cup. His meaning is, that Christians do not worship bread and wine in the sacrament, as the heathen did, Cont. Faust. In sacramenti sanctificatione & distributione existimo Apostolum propriè iussisse fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orationes, 1. Tim. 2.1. Quod verò quidam codices, non habent orationes, sed adorationes, non arbitror scienter interpretatum: In the consecrating and distributing of the sacrament, I think the Apostle bade orations or prayers to be made, not as some do unlearnedly interpret, adorations or worshippings, Epistol. 59 Ergo, he approveth not the adoration of the sacrament. AN APENDIX, OR TENTH PART, whether the wicked do receive the body of Christ. The Papists. THe wicked, they say, do in the sacrament eat the true flesh of Christ and error 125 drink his blood, though they be Infidels, and ill livers. Argum. They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1. Corinth. 11.27. How can they be guilty of that, which they have not received? And again, by the unworthy receiving of no other sacrament, is a man made guilty of the body and blood of Christ, but only here: Ergo, the wicked are partakers of his body? Rhemist. annot. 1. Corint. 11. sect. 16. Answer: 1. The wicked may be guilty of the body and blood of Christ in unworthy receiving the sacrament, though Christ be not corporally present: Even as he that contumeliously receiveth the seal of the prince or abuseth his image, is guilty of the Majesty of the prince, though he have not hurt his person. 2. He also may be guilty of the blood of Christ, that despiseth Baptism, which he received as a sign of his washing in the blood of Christ. And so the Apostle saith of wicked men, that fall away from Christian religion, that they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, Heb. 6.6. Augustine also bringeth in Christ thus speaking to the wicked in the day of judgement, Gravior apud me est, peccatorum tuorum crux, in qua invitus pendeo, quàm illa, in quam tuimisertus ascendi: the cross of thy sins, whereby thou didst crucify me, was more grievous unto me, than the Cross, to the which for thy cause I was lifted up: Serm. 181. cap. 7. de tempor. Thus we see, that wicked men by their sinful life may crucify Christ, though they can offer no violence to his body. The Protestants. THat wicked men and Infidels, cannot in any sense be partakers of the true body and blood of Christ, thus it is proved. Argum. 1. By faith only are we made partakers of the body and blood of Christ: but this faith the wicked cannot have. The first part is proved out of the Gospel: He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall never thirst again, john 4.14. He that shall never thirst, must believe in Christ, john 6.35. Ergo, he only that believeth doth drink the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith, Nolite parare fances, sed cor, non quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit: do not prepare your jaws, but your heart, it is not that which is seen, but what is believed, that nourisheth: Ergo, Christ must be received by faith: therefore Infidels or unbelievers cannot receive him. Argum. 2. Whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood, shall have eternal life, john 6.54. But the wicked have not eternal life: Ergo, they neither eat nor drink Christ. Augustine saith, De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem, quibusdam ad vitam: Tract. in johan. 26. res verò, cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam; nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit: From the Lord's table some do receive unto life, some unto death: but the thing, whereof it is a sacrament, worketh in all to life, in none to death, whosoever are partakers of it. But the body and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament: Ergo, whosoever receiveth them, hath life thereby; the wicked then receive them not. THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING the Popish Mass. THis part likewise comprehendeth divers questions. 1 Of the divers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ. 2 Of the sacrifice of the Mass, the name thereof, and of the sacrificing priesthood. 3 Of the virtue and efficacy which they falsely ascribe to the Mass. 4 For whom the sacrifice of the Mass is available: whether for the quick and the dead. 5. Of private Masses. 6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Mass. 7. Of the ceremonies which they use in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass: some go before: some are observed in the celebration thereof. 8. Of the form of the Mass, which consisteth partly of the Canon, and of the preface to the Canon, where we are to show the foul and heretical blasphemies, which in great number are belched out by them in the Mass. Of these now in their order. THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ. The Papists. THey are not contented with that one lively representation of the death of Christ, which is exhibited in the Lord's Supper, but they have brought in error 126 two more beside that, and so make three in all: the first, say they, is simplex repraesentatio, a simple and plain representation of the death of Christ, which is done so often as the Sacrament is received: the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum, A lively and full representation of Christ's death: which they do use yearly to set forth by solemn gestures, apparel, and other ceremonies upon Good Friday, as it is commonly called, before Easter, when they do make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament: the third representation is also a sacrifice beside, and that is the sacrifice of the Mass, Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside, which is in the solemn receiving of the Communion at Easter: So than first, Christ's death is showed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the year long as it hangeth in the pixe, or when it is carried to house the sick, Catechism. Rom. pag. 408. Secondly, it is represented once in the year by their solemn Pageant upon good Friday, when there is no Sacrament consecrated, but an histrionical expressing by certain gestures and actions, the manner of Christ's crucifying. Thirdly, in the continual sacrifice of the Mass, Christ his death is represented. And lastly, in the solemn receiving at Easter: for then especially, the mystery of Christ our Paschall lamb is commended to the people to be eaten with all sincerity in the Sacrament: and so do the Rhemist. expound that place of Saint Paul, Let us keep feast or holy day, not with the leaven of maliciousness, 1. Cor. 6.8. literally applying it to the feast of Easter, Rhemist. in hunc locum. The Protestants. FIrst, we are taught by the word of God, that by eating the bread, and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament, not by gazing, looking, lifting up, turning, hanging up bread in pixes, or by any such means, but only as we have said, is the Lords death showed forth and represented, 1. Corinth. 11.26. We acknowledge therefore one only Sacramental representation of Christ, and no more in the Lord's Supper: the sacrifice of the Mass we judge to be an abominable idol, as afterward shall be showed. Secondly, it is a foul absurdity to make any representation of Christ's death, by bare gestures, shows, and actions of the body without any Sacrament, as they do in their popish pageants upon Christ's Passion day: for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated, Eckius. cap. 15. But the Priest, by certain gestures and motions of the body, in bowing, bending, casting abroad his arms and such like, doth resemble Christ crucified, Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a lively representation being done without a Sacrament, and the other in the Sacrament, simplicem repraesentationem, but a simple and plain representation, is too great presumption: wherein they prefer their own superstitious devices, before the ordinance of Christ. Thirdly, that place of Saint Paul is unfitly applied to the celebration of Ester: Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise: Diem festum celebremus, non utique unam diem, sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis & veritatis: Let us keep holy day, not one only day, but all our life long, in the unleavened bread of pureness and truth. So then in Augustine's judgement, the Apostle had no relation to any certain time, which he would have kept holy: but to the reformation of the whole life. THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthood thereto belonging. THE FIRST PART, OF THE name and term of Mass. The Papists. error 127 THere are diverse opinions amongst them, concerning the original of this name. Some say it is called Missa the Mass, Quia oblatio & preces ad Deum mittantur, Hugo, de S. Victore. Others, quod Angelus a Deo mittatur, quisacrificio assistat▪ Because an angel is sent of God to be assistant at the Mass. Thom. Aquinas. 3. part. quaest. 83. artic. 4. Some, of the hebrue word Missath, Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation: Some, ex missis donarijs, & symbolis, of the gifts and offerings sent or put in before the Communion. But what beginning soever it had, they do now generally take the Mass, for that solemn action, whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice, and offered up to God. Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa. cap. 1. The Protestants. WE do not greatly force upon this name: for both the name and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouths; & we trust in God, we shall never have occasion to know it again. But howsoever it is, this name Missa, Mass, cannot signify any such thing as they pretend. 1 For it seemeth that Missa was derived, a dimissione populi, of the dismission or sending away of the people: and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray, or sing Psalms, or for any other religious duty: As yet to this day in the Dutch language (Mess) signifieth any solemn frequency or congregation of the people. In this sense Cassianus understandeth Mass, that is, for the dismission of the people: De canonicis orat. lib. ●. cap. 7. speaking of him that cometh not timely to the hours of prayer: he would not have him to enter in, but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere: he ought standing without the doors to wait for the miss of the congregation. 2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the liturgy or service of the Church, as serm. de tempore 251. if that Sermon be Augustine's. Sunt aliqui, & maximè potentes huius mundi, cum veniunt ad ecclesiam, non sunt devoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas, sed cogunt presbyterum ut abbreuiet Missam: there are some, and commonly the great men of the world, which come not to Church with any devotion to sing praises to God, but they constrain the presbyter or Minister to make short Mass. Here this word Mass signifieth the whole liturgy, as singing of Psalms, and praising God; not any sacrifice or oblation: for than he would have said, Cogunt sacerdotem, not presbyterum, They constrain the priest, not the Minister. Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Mass is of no great antiquity, so neither is the name in that sense. THE SECOND PART, OF THE sacrifice of the Mass. The Papists. CHrist, they say, at his last Supper, did offer up his own body and blood in error 128 sacrifice, under the forms of bread and wine, to God his father: and at the same instant made his Apostles, and their successors Priests, to offer up his body ●n the Sacrament, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 22. cap. 1. And the same body which Christ offered up upon the cross, is daily offered up by the ministery of the Priests, the difference only is in the manner of offering, Concil. Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternity & proper act of Christ's Priesthood, consisteth in the offering & sacrificing of the body & blood of Christ in the forms of bread & wine in the Church, Rhem. Heb. 7. sect. 8. And we mean always of Priest & sacrifice taken in their own proper signification, ibid. sect. 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very body and blood of Christ offered up to God, by the hands of the Priest, in the forms of bread and wine, Bellarm. cap. 5. Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: but the proper act of Melchisedechs' priesthood did consist in sacrificing in the forms of bread and wine: Ergo, the eternity of Christ's priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those forms: there doth therefore still remain a proper external sacrifice in the Church, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 8. Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. 1. We confess, that Melchisedech was a type of our Saviour Christ, and that he was a Priest after Melchisedechs' order: but not in any such respect, for offering in bread and wine: for the text saith, he brought forth bread and wine, he offered it not: he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham, and those which were with him, Genes. 14.18. 2. He brought forth bread and wine, and not the forms only of bread and wine, therefore your sacrifice in the forms only is not after his order. 3. If Melchisedechs' bringing forth of bread & wine were a sacrifice or oblation, and a type of the like sacrifice to continue for ever in the Church, it must also have been a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, as they say the sacrifice of the Mass is, which was thereby signified: but there is no propitiatory sacrifice for remission of sins, without shedding of blood, Hebr. 9.22. Therefore Milchisedechs' act, being without blood, was no such sacrifice, and consequently none at all. 4. The Apostle to the Hebrues showeth, wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchisedechs' order, Heb. 7. First, in that Melchisedech was both king & Priest, verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly, in respect of the eternity of his Priesthood: we do not read either of the beginning of his days, or end of his life, nor of any change of his priesthood, vers. 3. All which is most truly verified in Christ. Thirdly, Melchisedech was a type of Christ, and his Priesthood of Christ's, because of the excellency thereof above the levitical Priesthood: for Levi paid tithes in Abraham to Melchisedech, and therefore was inferior, and was blessed of Melchisedech in Abraham, the less of the greater: so is the Priesthood of Christ advanced far above Aaron's order. If in any other material point Melchisedechs' Priesthood had resembled Christ's, as in this oblation of bread and wine, the Apostle would not have omitted it. 5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchisedechs' priesthood, for the which he received tithes of Abraham: but, as the Apostle saith, he received tithes, and blessed Abraham, Heb. 7.6. Ergo, the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered, but for his blessing. The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthood. Argum. 2. They allege that place, Heb. 8.3. Every high Priest is appointed to offer gifts and hosts, wherefore it is necessary that he also have somewhat to offer. Christ then hath a certain host in external and proper manner, as other Priests have, but this visible and external act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heaven: therefore it must needs be meant of the perpetual oblation of his body and blood in the Church: for somewhat he must always have to offer, Rhemist. Hebr. 8. sect. 3. Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that it is necessary that Christ should still have somewhat to offer in sacrifice: but that it was needful for him to have somewhat, which he had already offered: for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth not the present tense, but the time past: whereby is understood the oblation which he had already offered once, and which need not be repeated, Hebr. 7.27. For as herein he is like to other Priests, that he must have somewhat to have offered, so is he unlike also in this, that they by reason of their infirmity had need to offer often: but Christ our high Priest did it but once, as in that place the Apostle showeth. 2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ, Vers. 2. was his body, which he calleth the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pight and not man. But that body of Christ, which they say is offered up in the sacrifice of the Mass, is not of that nature: for it is made by the ministery of man: for every one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the body of Christ: but this body, which Christ had to offer, was made only by God, without the help of man, as the Apostle saith. Again, say, if you dare, that the body which you offer, is the true Tabernacle and temple of God: for than it would follow, that God dwelleth in temples made with hands, that is, by the ministery of man, contrary to the Scriptures: seeing you affirm that the body of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministery of the Priest. And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God, think you, which you shut up in a pixe, and hang up in your Churches? A mouse may eat it, the fire may consume it, corruption may take it: would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled? Wherefore upon these premises we conclude, that what you offer in your popish sacrifice, cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christ's Priesthood. Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, Hebr. 13.10. We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle. Ergo, we have not only a common table to eat mere bread upon, but a very altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christ's body upon. Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 13. sect. 6. Ans. First, the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christ's death, whereof we are made partakers by faith: which they can reap no benefit by, which remain in the ceremonial observations of levitical sacrifices. Christ therefore is our Priest, altar and sacrifice: for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the sufferings of Christ: he meaneth not then the Communion table, which is unproperly called an altar, or any material altar beside, but the altar only of Christ's death. Secondly, if wheresoever in Scripture this word (altar) is read, it must be taken for a proper material altar, we shall have also a material altar in heaven, Apoc. 8.3. which I am sure they will not grant. Thirdly, the Apostle saith, We have an altar, which is but one, whereas popish altars are many: it cannot therefore be understood of such altars. The Protestants. THat there are spiritual sacrifices remaining yet unto Christians in the exercise of religion, we do verily believe, being so taught by the Scriptures: such are the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13.15. The sacrifice of alms and distribution, verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh, is a kind of crucifying, and so a spiritual sacrifice, Galat. 6.14. And in this sense we deny not, but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice, that is, a spiritual oblation of praise and thanksgiving: but that there is a proper and external sacrifice, as in the law of Goats and Bullocks, upon the cross of the body of Christ: so in the Eucharist, of the same body and flesh of Christ: we do hold it for a great blasphemy, and heresy. Argum. 1. The very flesh, and true natural body of Christ, is not, as we have showed before at large, in such carnal and corporal manner present in the Sacrament: therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed, and offered up. Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the body and blood of Christ is contrary to Christ's institution: for he saith only, Take ye, eat ye, drink ye: he saith not, Sacrifice ye, or lift up, and make an oblation of my body. Neither do those words, hoc facite, do this, give them any power to sacrifice: for to whom he saith, Eat ye, drink ye, to the same also he saith, Do ye. Wherefore, if do ye, be as much as, sacrifice ye: all Christians, for whom it is lawful to eat and drink the Sacrament, by this rule have authority to sacrifice. Again, the words are, Do this in remembrance. We remember things absent, and which are already done and passed: if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the body of Christ, it cannot properly be said to be a memory of his sacrifice. Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, that Christ need not to offer himself often, but that he hath done once in the end of the world, Heb. 9.26. And with one offering, hath he made perfit for ever them that are sanctified, 10.14. Ergo, Christ cannot be sacrificed again: for that were to make his sacrifice upon the cross imperfect. Bellarmine answereth: that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloody and painful sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, which was sufficient once to be done: but this taketh not away the unbloody sacrifice, which is but an iteration of the former, whereby the fruit and efficacy of that first oblation is applied unto us, 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 be often howsoever sacrificed, the difference would not hold between the sacrifices of the law 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 iterative and commemorative sacrifices of Christ's death: Ergo, we have not now. Secondly, that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloody and unbloody sacrifice, as they understand it: for there can be no proper unbloody sacrifice of Christ, neither could he be offered up, otherwise then by dying, Heb. 9.27.28. Therefore he is not offered up in the Sacrament, because now he dieth not. Thirdly, neither need we invent a new kind of sacrifice, for the application of Christ's death: for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word, and instituted the Sacraments: whereby the death of Christ with all the benefits thereof, are most fruitfully applied unto us, Galath. 3.1. 1. Corinth. 11.26. Argum. 4. Augustine in a certain place allegorizing the parable of the prodigal child, thus writeth, Vitulum occidit, Ad fratres in erem. serm. 27. quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renovauit: He slew the fat calf, when he renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memory of his passion in his mind. He calleth it the Sacrament, not the sacrifice of the altar: and it only bringeth to our mind the memory of Christ's passion and sacrifice: there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament, but only a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, which we deny not. AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART, OF the name and office of Priests. The Papists. AS they do falsely teach and persuade, that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 external sacrifice for Christians under the Gospel, so also they maintain a sacrificing Priesthood. And further they say, that the levitical Priesthood was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, but is properly turned into the Priesthood and sacrifice in the Church, according to Melchisedechs' rite, in offering up the body and blood of Christ in the forms of bread and wine, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 7. Wherefore they which minister under the Gospel, are worthily called Priests: which word doth so certainly imply the authority of sacrificing, that it is by use made the only English of Sacerdos, Rhemist. act. 14. sect. 3. The Protestants. FIrst, we hold it to be a great blasphemy to say, that the Priesthood & sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice & Priesthood was translated & changed. The Apostle proveth the contrary: for that sacrifice, whereby the new Testament is established, is that, whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthood is translated: but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ, who is the surety of a better testament, Hebr. 7.23. Ergo, his singular sacrifice upon the cross, is that whereinto the old levitical sacrifices are changed, and no other. Again the Priesthood after Melchisedechs' order is that, into the which the old Priesthood is changed: but the Priesthood of Christ upon the Cross was after that order. Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to deny, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was after Melchisedechs' order, but do most impudently and blasphemously affirm, that it was after the order of Aaron, Heskin. lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus every vile massmonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs' order, than Christ himself. Secondly, none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: for unto whom the Lord said, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalm, Sat thou at my right hand, Psal. 110. But this cannot agree to any popish Priest: therefore not the other. Again, the Apostle maketh this difference between the Priesthood of the law and the Gospel: because then there were many Priests, they being prohibited by death to continue: but Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament, because he dieth not, Heb. 7 23.24. If they answer, as they do, that although there be many Priests, yet it is but one Priesthood, because Christ concurreth with them in the acts of the Priesthood, Rhemist. We answer, first, Christ concurreth with his faithful ministers in the acts of their ministery: but no such Priesthood do we acknowledge. Secondly, so Christ concurred in the acts of the levitical Priesthood, and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered: wherefore this concurrence of Christ doth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospel, than it did in the law. Thirdly, concerning the name of Priests in their sense, as it implieth an authority of sacrificing, we utterly abhor it: secondly, but as it is derived of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ which signifieth an Elder, we refuse it not, but wish rather, that it had not been abused in common speech to signify popish sacrificers. Thirdly, as for the word (sacerdos) which may be englished a sacrificer, we find it no where in the New Testament given to the ministers of the Gospel, and so much Bellarmine confesseth, cap. 17. And therefore unfitly and unproperly agreeth unto them. If some of the fathers have confounded the names of Sacerdos and (Presbyter) they are not to be commended. The word Sacerdos, a sacrificer, being a proper name of the Levitical Priests, cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospel. To conclude, this word (Priest) as it is the English of (Sacerdos) we do not approve: but as it giveth the sense of (Presbyter) from whence it is derived, we condemn it not: for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder. If common use of speech have drawn it to a contrary sense, it would be amended. Quaest evangelicar. lib. 2. quaest. 40. Augustine saith, Sacerdotium judaeorum nemo dubitat, etc. No faithful man doubteth, but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royal Priesthood in the Church, whereby all that pertain to the body of Christ are consecrated. He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church, then that whereby all Christians are made Priests, to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God through Christ. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE VIRTUE AND efficacy falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Mass. The Papists. 1. THey blasphemously affirm, that it is a sacrifice propitiatory, that is, available error 130 to obtain, ex opere operato, by the very work wrought, remission and pardon of all their sins. Trident. Concil. sess. 22. can. 3. Argum. Christ himself saith in the institution, This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sins: Ergo, the sacrifice of the Mass is available for remission of sins, Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss. cap. 2. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, Christ instituted no sacrifice, as we declared afore, but only a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion. Secondly, the Sacrament rightly administered, serveth to assure our faith of remission of sins by the death of Christ: but it doth not by it own virtue confer remission of sins, neither profiteth by the work wrought: for the Apostle saith, That without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebr. 11.6. wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith. Argum. The Apostle saith, Where there is remission of sins, there is no more sacrifice for sin, Hebr. 10.18. Seeing then remission of sins is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ, there can be no more sacrifice for sin: Ergo, the Mass is no sacrifice for sin. The Papists. 2. THe sacrifice of the Mass is not only propitiatory for sins, but available error 131 to obtain all other benefits, as peace, tranquility, health, and such like. Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth, That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men, especially for Kings, that we may lead a godly and a peaceable life, 1. Timoth. 1.1. These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Mass, Bellarm. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, the Apostle speaketh generally of all prayers, made by whomsoever, as it appeareth, vers. 8. Therefore this place is unfitly applied to the prayers of Priests in the Mass. Secondly, this place proveth, that temporal benefits are obtained by faithful prayers, not by the sacrifice of the Mass, which S. Paul never knew. Thirdly, Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the public prayers of the Church used in the administration of the Sacrament: for he calleth it, Epistol. 59 Domini mensam, the Lords table, not the altar: he meaneth nothing less than your popish Mass Argum. It is contrary to the institution of Christ, to apply the Sacrament for any such temporal or external use. It was ordained to be received in remembrance of Christ's death, to assure us by faith of remission of sins, and other spiritual blessings: not to give us assurance of health, peace, life, prosperity: for the obtaining of such blessings, according to the will of God, other means are appointed. The ministery of the Sacraments no more serveth for such uses, than the preaching of the word. THE FOURTH QUESTION, FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of the Mass is available. The Papists. error 132 FIrst, they affirm that Mass may be said and offered for all the living, yea for Pagans and infidels, for men absent as well as present: for Saint Paul willeth prayers and supplications to be made for all men, 1. Timoth. 2.1. Bellarm. cap. 6. Secondly, the sacrifice of the Mass is available for the dead which are in error 133 Purgatory, Bellarm. cap. 7. Concil. Trid. sess. 22. can. 3. error 134 Thirdly, Mass may be rightly said in the remembrance and for the honour of Saints, with invocation of them also in the prayers of the Church, Bellarm. cap. 8. Argum. The Apostles taught the Church to keep a memory or invocation of the Saints in this sacrifice, and that there should be special prayers for the dead: for these and such like were the things (no doubt) that S. Paul saith he would set in order when he came, 1. Cor. 11.34. Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1. To the place out of Timothy we have answered before, that it is understood generally of all prayers made by the faithful: neither doth it follow, it is lawful to pray for all men, and therefore the Sacrament is available for all men: for these are two divers things: prayer is an effect of our faith, the Sacrament is an instrumental or ministerial cause of our faith. 2. It is too great boldness for you, without scripture, to affirm, that these superstitious rites of yours were those very orders which the Apostle promised at his coming to establish: but either they were such as partained not to the administration of the Sacrament, or were but accidental orders meet for the Church of Corinth, and not necessary for all times and places. The Protestants. FIrst, the Sacrament (for sacrifice we acknowledge none) is only ordained for their comfort that do receive it: neither can one receive the Sacrament for another, no more than he may be baptised in the stead of another. Secondly, neither doth the celebration of the Sacrament profit the dead, as we have showed before, that it is in vain to pray for them. Thirdly, neither are the Saints, either then or at any other time to be prayed unto, or either by this, or any other religious worship to be honoured. Argum. All these superstitious observances are clean contrary and repugnant to the institution of Christ. First, he saith, Take ye, eat ye, do this: wherefore to their comfort only the Sacrament worketh, that do receive it, and are doers in that action: the benefit thereof then is not extended to the absent, but only to the partakers. Secondly, the dead can feel no comfort by it, because they can neither eat nor drink it, nor be doers therein. Thirdly, Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me: he saith not, in remembrance of Angels, Apostles, Saints: but only of me. Therefore it is contrary to the institution to use any commemoration of Saints in the Sacrament. Augustine saith, Quis offeret sacrificium corporis Christi, nisi pro ijs, qui sunt membra Christi? Who will offer the sacrifice of the body of Christ, but for the members of Christ? Lib. 1. de origin. anim. cap. 9 Therefore the Sacrament can not be celebrated for Pagans and Infidels, who are no members of Christ. Again, he saith: Nos Martyribus non constituimus templa, sacerdotia, sacra aut sacrificia: We do not erect either temples, priests, service or sacrifices to Martyrs, De civitat. dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. Ergo, it is not lawful to use the Sacrament for the honour of Saints. THE FIFT QUESTION OF private Masses. The Papists. IF any man shall say, that private Masses, wherein the Priest alone by himself error 135 doth communicate, are unlawful, and therefore to be abolished, we pronounce him accursed, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 22. can. 8. Argum. The sacrifices of the law were sacrifices, before the people did eat thereof: so the substance & making of a medicine is one thing, the ingredience, or taking of it, an other: Ergo, neither is receiving part of the substance or making of the sacrifice of Christ's body, but a consequence only: therefore there may be a sacrifice and sacrament without it, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 14. Ans. First, we deny that there is any sacrifice in the Eucharist, but a Sacrament only: and therefore the comparison holdeth not between a sacrifice, which consisted both of oblation to God, and the participation of the people that offered, and the Sacrament which Christ in his institution offered not to God, but to his Disciples. Secondly, neither doth the similitude of a medicine conclude: for you cannot prove that the Sacrament not received hath virtue in it, as a medicine hath: for faith is requisite to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, which is not necessary in the applying of a medicine: and yet it is not properly called a medicine, unless being made, it be also applied, and being received doth heal. The Protestants. WE utterly condemn the superstitious practices of popish priests, who do use to communicate alone in their Masses, the people standing by▪ gazing and looking upon him: yea you might have seen many Masses said in one Church at once, almost in every corner one, no person being present for the most part, but the priest and his boy. Argum. This private receiving of the Sacrament is contrary to the institution of Christ, who saith, speaking to many, Take ye, eat ye, and divide this amongst you: there must be then a division and distribution. Saint Paul also saith, We that are many are one bread and one body, in as much as we are partakers of one bread, 1. Corinth. 10.17. Ergo, many must communicate together For the Apostle speaketh not of the mystical communion of the faithful in this place, which do all make but one body in Christ, (for so we do communicate with the Church by faith, not only in the Sacrament, but without it) but of the Sacramental communion of as many as receive together: for how else can they be said to be partakers of one bread, or loaf, unless they receive together. Augustine saith, that, Sacramentum benedicitur, sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur: Epistol. 59 That the Sacrament is blessed, sanctified, and broken to be distributed: Ergo, where there is distribution, there must be many to receive. AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of the Sacrament. The Papists. 136. Error. THey utterly mislike these names of the Sacrament, that it is called amongst us the Lord's Supper, or Communion: belike (say they) they will bring it again to the Supper, or evening service, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 6. And the name Communion, is as ignorantly used of them, thereby making the people believe, that many should communicate together, 1. Cor. 11. sect. 24. they should rather use the names of the Eucharist, Mass, or Liturgy. The Protestants. FIrst, for the name of the Lords Supper, we do learn of S. Paul so to call it: When ye come together, (saith he) this is not to eat the Lords Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.20. Rhemist. The Apostle calleth their feasts of love, which they were wont to make after the receiving of the Sacrament, the Lords Supper, coenas dominicas, because they were made in the Lords houses, which were called Dominicae: he meaneth not the Sacrament. Ans. First, there were then no such distinct places, as Churches, and Oratories for the service of God, which began to be built many years after, but they assembled together in their own houses. Secondly, if their love-feasts were called the Lords Suppers, it would follow that they never had them but at night, and that then also the Sacrament was celebrated about the time of their feasts, which must be at the eeventide. But this, I think, they dare not affirm▪ that they celebrated the Sacrament at night: wherefore the Apostle cannot mean any other Supper, but that which was instituted by Christ, as it followeth, vers. 23. Augustine calleth it the Lords Supper, Coenam manibus suis consecratam discipulis suis dedit: His Supper being consecrated, In Luk. ser. 33. he gave with his own hands to his Disciples. And although we sat not down at that feast: Ipsam coenam tamen fide quotidie manducamus: Yet we eat that Supper daily by faith. 2. The name Communion, the Apostle also himself useth: he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The communion of the body of Christ, 1. Corinth. 10.16: so doth Augustine name it, Communionem corporis Christi. de civit. Det. 20. cap. 9 3. As for the names of Eucharist, and Liturgy, we mislike them not, being understood in their own sense: but because they are Greek and not understood of the people, we use them not. The horrible sacrilege of the Mass, is the cause also why we use not that term. THE sixth QUESTION, OF THE MANNER OF saying and celebrating Mass. The Papists. IT is not necessary that the Mass (or as we call it, the Sacrament) should be said or done in the vulgar and familiar speech, but for the greater reverence, 137. Error. to be kept in the Latin tongue, they say, it is more convenient: and that the words of consecration should not be uttered in a loud and audible, but in a soft and low voice, Bellarm. cap. 11.12. Argum. Christ for the space of three hours, being so long upon the Cross, uttered nothing in the hearing of the standers by, but 7. short sentences: Ergo, in the sacrifice of the Mass, it is not necessary to utter all in the hearing of the people, Ibid. Ans. First, they have not proved by this example, that the Priest should mutter and mumble to himself; but the contrary rather: that either he must altogether hold his peace, or else speak aloud; unless they can show that Christ spoke some words secretly to himself. Secondly, we must not fetch the right use of the Sacrament of our own heads, from the example of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross: but we are commanded to resort for direction, to the institution in his last Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.23. The Protestants. FIrst, for the Sacrament or any other part of the service of God to be ministered in an unknown tongue, is contrary to S. Paul's rule, who would have all things to be done in the Church to edifying, and in such sort that the unlearned might say, Amen, 1. Corinth. 14.16. But the people cannot be edified by a language which they understand not: nor yet can say, Amen unto strange prayers. But of this matter we have already elsewhere entreated more at large. Secondly, it is also contrary to S. Paul's rule, that the Priest should mutter to himself, and not speak aloud in the hearing of the people: for he saith, Ye do show forth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, annuntiatis, preach or declare the death of Christ, so often as ye receive it, 1. Corinth. 11.26. But they do not annuntiare, that is, preach, set forth, and declare the death of Christ, that speak only to themselves. Augustine saith, Populus cum episcopo orat, & quasi ad eius verba subscribens respondet, Cont. Parmenian. lib. 1. cap. 7. Amen: The people prayeth with their pastor, and subscribing to his words, say, Amen. But how can the people say, Amen, where nothing is heard, or subscribe in their hearts unto it? THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE CEREMOnies which they use in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass. The Papists. error 138 SOme ceremonies go before the celebration of the Mass, and they are of such things, as they have always in a readiness for that impious service: such are the vestments and apparel of the priest, the Albe, Chesil, Stole, Dalmatic, with such other: Altars, Altarclothes, Corporasses, Pixes, Paxes, Dishes, Candlesticks, Platters, Censers, water-pots: all these and the like trumpery ought of right to be used in the sacrifice of the Mass, the better to discern the body of Christ, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 18. The Protestants. FIrst, for divers causes we do condemn and reject these superstitious usages of the Papists: 1. Because of the superfluous & unnecessary number of them, fewer by a great deal may serve for the Communion to be kept, after Christ's institution: neither do we read, that Christ at his last Supper used any such, who notwithstanding would not have left out any thing requisite and needful for the Sacrament. 2. The superfluous and excessive cost, in making so many Church vessels of gold and silver, so many Mass garments of silk, fine linen, embroidered with gold, pearl, & precious stones, was both an intolerable burden to the Church, at whose charge such things were provided, and a great deal more costly, then became the simplicity of the Gospel. 3. Convenient vessels and instruments, which are necessary for the administration of the Sacrament, with other seemly ornaments: as a decent covering for the Communion table, a clean and handsome vessel to keep the wine, a cup of silver for the distribution, clean linen napkins for the bread: such instruments and ornaments of the Lords table we condemn not, but use them ourselves: yet none of them for such ends or purposes, as they pretend, to discern the body of the Lord by them: as though they were ordained to wait and attend upon the bodily presence of Christ, which they have falsely imagined: but we use them for decency and order sake, and due reverence, which is to be yielded to so great mysteries. In the Apostles time they had no consecrated Altars, but Communion tables, 1. Cor. 10.21. neither is it like that they used vessels of gold or silver in the Lord's Supper, when they had neither silver nor gold in their purses, Math. 10.9. Wherefore such things are not necessary for the discerning of the Lords body. The Papists. 2. THere are other ceremonies, which they observe and use in the very action itself and celebration of the Mass: as the divers gestures of the Priest, to lift up his eyes, and cast them down again, and to lift them up the second, the third time: sometime to cast abroad his hands, to close them again, to warble with his fingers, to bow, to bend, to duck, to turn on this side and on that, now on the right hand, again on the left: to sigh, to smite upon his breast, to lift up the Chalice, and show it to the people, and set it down again: as also the dividing of the host into three parts, which signify three parts of the Church, in heaven, in earth, and in purgatory: the rinsing of part thereof in wine, and eating part dry, the washing of his fingers before consecration: kissing of the altar, the patten, the book, the pax: sprinkling of holy water, censing of odours, crossing the chalice, the bread, their mouth, breast and face, which sign of the cross they make above twenty times in one Mass while: Add also unto these, their tedious & irksome songs, the rude noise and unedifying sound of strange instruments, and the whole course of their Mass music set forth in a strange language, and indited to the honour of Saints. All these superstitious rites, with divers more, vain, unfruitful, abominable, they notwithstanding with force and main defend and maintain, Bellarm▪ lib. 2. de missa. cap. 14.15. Concil. Trid●ntin. sess. 22. ca●. 7. The Protestants. 1. THis multitude of human inventions, agreeth not with the institution of the Lords Supper: for we read not of any such kissing, kneeling▪ becking, bowing, or the like ridiculous gestures to have been used, when our Saviour instituted the Supper, nor afterwards by the Apostles to have been practised▪ wherefore we contenting ourselves with the plain institution of Christ, do worthily reject all such toys. 2. Most of these gestures are impious, and tend to idolatry in the adoration of bread and wine, which are but creatures: and they are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true devotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the body. Augustine saith very well: Corpus genibus flexis prosternis, collum curuas in oratione, video ubi iaciat corpus, sed quaero ubi volitet animus? Thou bowest the knee, bendest thy body in prayer stretchest out thy neck, I see where thy body lieth: but what is become of thy soul? 3. Concerning Church songs and Music, Augustine thus writeth: S●briè Psallimus in Ecclesia divina cantica Prophetarum: Epistol. 119 cap. 19 We sing treatably and soberly in the Church the divine songs of the Prophets. Two conditions he requireth: first, that we sing holy Psalms taken out of the scriptures. Secondly, that they be sung treatably and distinctly: Etiam illic (saith he) si sonum non sensum libido audiendi desideret, Cont. julian. lib. 4.14. improbatur: Even in good songs, if we follow the sound, not the sense, it is to be discommended: but in popish songs neither of these conditions is kept: for both the ditty, for the most part, is idolatrous, stuffed with invocation and adoration of Saints, and the note is so divided and drawn out in length, that nothing can be understood. THE EIGHT QUESTION OF THE FORM OF THE Mass, which consisteth partly of the Canon, partly of such things as are rehearsed before and after the Canon. THE FIRST PART OF THE PRAYERS WHICH go before the Canon of the Mass. WE do not utterly condemn whatsoever is said or sung in their Liturgy or Mass: for as they have their introite, so we do bid the people, after due preparation, in our Communions to draw near. We have also our Confiteor, a confession of sins to be said before the Communion. Other forms also, which have been used of ancient time, we do not refuse: as Dominus vobiscum, The Lord be with you: Kyrieeleson, Lord have mercy of us: Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts: with Alleluia, praised be God, and Sanctus, Sanctus, holy, holy: and Gloria in excelsis, Glory be to God on high: the preface also to the Communion, Verè dignum, & justum est, It is meet, right, and our bounden duty: And we use also the Lords prayer after the distribution. These forms we mislike not, using the same ourselves, which notwithstanding we borrow not from them, but from the ancient and purer ages of the Church. But the corruptions, additions, immutations, which are used by them in these prefaces to the Mass, we do utterly condemn, as their introite and confiteor, is stuffed full of idolatry, and invocation of Saints: their Kyrieeleson is 9 times repeated in an unknown tongue Elevation and adoration was brought in by Pope Honorius, anno. 1222. the Agnus was devised by Pope Sergius, ann. 700. the Pax by Innocentius, plura apud Foxum. p. 1403. THE SECOND PART, OF THE Canon of the Mass. The Papists. 1. FIrst, the form of their Mass they have (they say) by tradition from the Apostles: error 139 Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 22. The Protestants. THeir own authors do testify, that every patch of their Mass was thrust in by Popes later than the Apostles: as by Leo the 1. Gregory the 1. Gregory the 3. Innocentius the 3. Honorius the 3. with many other: yea, Gregory the 1. confesseth, that one Scholasticus made the most part of the Canon. Ergo, it was not devised by the Apostles. Bellarmine answereth, that Gregory setteth not down any one man, by this name Scholasticus, but meaneth generally some notable learned man: and in this sense S. Peter, saith he, which was the author of the Canon, may be called Scholasticus, Bellarm. cap. 19 Ans. This devise of the jesuite is rather to be laughed at, then to be confuted: who ever heard before, that S. Peter and the other Apostles were Scholastici, Schoolmen? what is this else, but to set the spirit of God to school, in saying that the Apostles being men endued with the holy Ghost, were brought up in Schools? Again, Gregory findeth fault with the said Scholasticus, that in composing the Canon, he would put in his own prayers, and leave out the Lords prayer: but if this Scholasticus had been Peter, I think Gregory would not have been so bold, as to have rebuked him. The Papists. 2. THe Canon of the Mass (they say) is perfect and absolute, 140. Error. void of all error, and therefore not to be changed or abrogated, Concil. Trident. sess. 22. can. 6. Bellarm. cap. 21. The Protestants. But we on the contrary side, more truly and agreeably to Scripture, doubt not to say, that there can be nothing more corrupt, abominable, fuller of all impiety, heresy, lying, then is their idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass: as it shall now more particularly appear, by the collection of the several errors. THE ERRORS AND BLASPHEMIES that are to be found in the Canon of the Mass. 1. THe Priest speaking of the bread and wine, thus saith, Which we offer unto thee for thy holy Catholic Church: and again afterward, Which we offer for the redemption of their souls. What great blasphemy is this, to offer bread & wine for the redemption of the Church, for the which Christ in great love offered up himself? 2. The Priest saith, Worshipping the memorial of the Virgin: But Christ instituted the Sacrament to be kept in remembrance of himself, and not for the worship of Saints. 3. By whose merits and prayers, namely of the Saints, grant we may be defended. Thus the merits and prayers of Christ are excluded. 4. We beseech thee (saith the Priest) to receive this oblation, which we beseech thee in all things to make blessed: Hear the Priest is made a mediator between Christ and his Father: desiring God to sanctify the body & blood of his son. 5. Who the next day afore he suffered: But the Scripture saith, The same night, For this is my body: Hear they have put in enim, of their own, and left out, quod pro vobis datur. Such is their boldness, that they are not ashamed to change the words of our Saviour Christ. 6. He saith further: The holy bread of eternal life, which vouchsafe thou with a pleasant countenance to behold: The bread of eternal life is Christ himself, if this be he, how dare ye presume to offer him up to his Father? 7. As thou didst vouchsafe to accept the righteous gifts of Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham. Hear the sacrifice of Christ is compared to the sacrifice of beasts: and the Priest seemeth to attribute as much efficacy to the one, as to the other. 8. And the holy sacrifice which thy high Priest Melchisedech did offer unto thee. This is a plain untruth, and a flat lie, as we have showed already, that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine. 9 Command thou these to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angel, unto the high altar in heaven. What an absurd thing is this, that he should desire that to be carried into heaven which he eateth and devoureth? And if this be the body of Christ, what need the help of an Angel to carry it up to heaven? is not Christ able to lift up his own body? or what need that to be conveyed to heaven, which was never from thence? 10. As many of us as shall receive thy sons body and blood: And yet for the most part none receive but the Priest: and when the people do communicate, the wine they have not: how then can he say, As many? 11. Remember, O Lord, the souls of thy servants, which rest in the sleep of peace, and grant them a place of refreshing and rest: Hear is an other error contrary to the Scriptures in praying for the dead, and the prayer also is contrary to itself: for first he saith, they rest in peace, and yet afterward prayeth for their refreshing. 12. Vouchsafe to give some portion with thy Saints: And why doth he not rather pray to be admitted to the fellowship of Christ? 13. Deliver us by the blessed intercession of the Virgin: What then is become of Christ's mediation and intercession? 14. Let this mingling together of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, be unto me salvation of mind and body: Then is not Christ's blood shed upon the Cross the full sufficient and perfect salvation of mankind, if there be an other salvation beside. 15. Grant me so worthily to take this holy body and blood, that I may merit to receive forgiveness of sins: O sinful man, how canst thou merit that which is Christ's only gift? 16. Let the priest bow himself to the host, saying, I worship thee, I glorify thee, I praise thee: What monstrous Idolatry is this, thus to worship a piece of bread? 17. Let this communion purge us from sin: If they mean the principal purging of our sin, so doth Christ only purge us, Heb. 1.3. If they understand the instrumental means of our purgation, so are we purged and justified only by faith, Rom. 3.28. 18. Respect not my sins, but the faith of thy Church: By this reason one may be profited by an others faith: which is contrary to the Scriptures: the just shall live by faith: his own, and not an others. 19 Let us worship the sign of the Cross: What I pray you will not these Idolaters worship? 20. Let this sacrifice which I have offered, avail to obtain remission of sins: If the Mass be available for this end, wherefore then died Christ? Thus we see with how many and what great and horrible blasphemies this popish, nay rather, devilish canon of the Mass is stuffed: indeed it is an epitome and abridgement of Papistry, the marrow, sinews, and bones of their idolatrous profession: yea the very darling of the popish Church: it is the very proper badge and mark of a papist. He that hateth the Mass, hateth the whore of Babylon: he that loveth the Mass, cannot love the truth. If then I should be demanded at once, which of all popish blasphemies and heresies I think most abominable, contrary to the faith, and to be abhorred of all good christians: (though I know that there are many of this kind) yet I would readily answer the Mass: the invention whereof, I am well assured, cannot be ascribed but to the devil himself, the author of all lies and blasphemies. I conclude therefore with that saying of Gregory, as he said concerning the word, Antichristus: so may I in as good sense of this word, Missa, as it is now understood of Papists. Si spectes quantitatem vocis, duae sunt syllabae; si pondus iniquitatis, est universa pernicies. If you mark the quantity of the word, it standeth but of two syllables: but if we respect the weight of iniquity, it containeth all impiety and ungodliness. Soli Deo immortali Patri, Filio, cum Spiritu sancto sit honor et imperium sempiternum. THE THIRD BOOK OR century, CONTAINING A THIRD HVNDRED OF POPISH ERRORS, AND HERESIES, ABOUT the controversies of the five Popish Sacraments, and of the benefits of our redemption, and concerning the person of Christ, CONSISTING OF SEVEN SEVERAL CONTROVERSIES THE 14, 15.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. in number. Imprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas man.. 1592. To the right honourable Sir Robert Sicily Knight, one of her majesties most honourable privy Council. BOth that general love (right honourable) which the Church of God doth bear to your worthy and honourable Father, for his sincere and sound affection to religion, and the dutiful reverence which our university of Cambridge, and generally the whole company of Students doth owe unto him as their singular good Patron, have moved and caused me at this time, to commend this last part of this work to your Honour his son: of whose love also unto the Gospel, following your Father's steps, we are all persuaded, and conceive no less hope of your honourable favour to learning: I have (as your Honour seethe) undertaken an hard piece of work, and thrust my shoulders under an heavy burden: for in this work I have taken upon me, to discover and lay open all popish Heresies, and Errors, to portrait and decipher the whole body of papistry, to spread abroad the whore of Babylon's skirts, that her filthiness may appear: to uncover her whorish face, which masked under the viso of the Church, and religion: for we may say to them, as Leo Bishop of Rome did sometime to certain Heretics: Ecclesiae nomine armamini, sed contra Ecclesiam d●micatis: You are armed with the name of the Church, and yet you fight against the Church. This difficult matter being thus by me enterprised, I have exposed myself to the obloquy and evil speech of two sorts of men: against whom in the defence of this work I must crave your honours aid and protection. The first sort, is of our hollow hearted Countrymen, that have English faces, but Romish hearts, who will forge cavillations (I know) against these labours of mine: and not cease to accuse me of lying and falsehood, as not having truly and indifferently set down the opinions of the popish Church. To meet then with those slanderous accusations, let such men know that I have been most careful and circumspect in this behalf, throughout this whole work, not to charge them with any opinions, which I have not gathered out of their own writings, and alleged their own Authors for them: so that with a good conscience I can protest before God (that one day shall open the secrets of our hearts) that to my knowledge I have not any where used any forgery, cavilling, or deceit, in setting down their assertions: and I would to God their writers were as free from this fault, and as indifferent in alleging the sentence of our Church, as we do deal plainly with them. But as for them, it is a shame to see, how without all fear, the Rhemists in their annotations upon the new testament, do belly and slander our Church: I will for example sake note a few places. They charge us to say, that God is the author of sin, annot. Math. 13. sect. 2. which blasphemy is further off from us, than it is from them: though we grant, that nothing is done in the world beside the will of God, not by his permission only. That we affirm all things to be easy in Scripture, annot. Luk. 6. sect 1. whereas we say only, that the doctrine of faith is plainly declared in Scripture: and deny not, but that many things are therein hard to be understood. That we should say, that the preaching of the Law, and the judgement to come, maketh men hypocrites, Act. 24. sect. 2. whereas we hold the preaching of the Law to be necessary to bring men to repentance: but justification by keeping the Law, which they teach, we utterly condemn. That we condemn good works as sinful, Pharisaical, hypocritical, annot. Rom. 2. sect. 3. whereas we acknowledge them to be the good gifts of God, the fruits of justification, the way wherein all Christians must walk to salvation: we only exclude them from being any cause of our justification before God. That we allow no fasting, but moral temperance, and spiritual fasting from sin, Act. 13. sect. 5. whereas we do acknowledge a Christian use of fasting and abstinence from all meats and drinks, for the taming of the flesh, and making us more fit to pray: not an abstinence from flesh only, as they do superstitiously practise. That we should say, man hath no more free will, than a piece of clay, Rom. 9 sect. 7. whereas we only say, that our free will hath no power or strength at all, to will or do the thing that good is, without the grace of God. That Caluine holdeth Christians children to be so holy, that they need no baptism, annot. 1. Cor. 7. sect. 11. Whereas Caluine clean contrary reasoneth thus against the Anabaptists, That children ought therefore to be baptised, because they are holy, as S. Paul saith: And such slanderous accusations they have published against us, which would require a several treatise to be set forth at large. Let indifferent men now judge (comparing their writings with ours) which of us hath dealt most untruly, and unfaithfully each with other: and whether we have not more just occasion to complain of them, than they of us. But to let accusations go, I would desire them rather to listen to the words of exhortation, that they would but indifferently weigh with an equal balance of Christian judgement, what is set down on both parts in this book: I trust if they be not wilful and obstinate in their opinions, that they may in time conceive some better liking of the truth. Augustine in a certain place maketh mention of drunken Polio, Cont. Iust. Pelag. lib. 1 who one a time came from his pots and riotous company to Xenocrates school, to laugh the grave Philosopher to scorn: but it fell out to his good far otherwise: Ad extremum totum se illi, ad quem deridendum venerat, discipulum tradidit: But Polemo being clean changed by Xenocrates speech, became his Scholar whom he went to scorn: and whereas he came drunk, he returned sober. So I wish that our English recusants would but take up this and such other books into their hands, if it were but to scorn them, God may so work with them, that their scorning shallbe turned into a love and liking of the truth. And I further say unto them, as Augustine to the Pelagians: Quod dicimus, orent, ut aliquando intelligant, non litigent, ut nunquam intelligant, quod dicimus intendant, non contendant, illuminentur, non calumnientur. another sort of men there is beside these (Right honourable) against whom I must arm myself: they are such, as are given to extenuate, Cont. 2. epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 1. disgrace, and discommend the labours of others. Me thinks I hear them thus to give out of me. He hath taken a matter in hand above his strength, some of his writings are extant already, we know what he can do, he is like to perform no great matter, and what doth he? he doth but abridge other men's writings, he bringeth nothing of his own. To these accusations I thus answer: First, I confess my strength to be small of itself: yet God by weak means may work great things. Some Pamphlets of mine, I confess, are abroad unworthy this learned age, though perhaps befitting the person that wrote them, his time & age, and the occasion considered. But I say rather with August. I count myself in the number of those, qui scribendo proficiunt, et proficiendo scribunt, which profit in writing, and by profiting write. Secondly, concerning my labour & pains taken in this work I boast not; he that thinketh it light, let him try first himself before he give his judgement: the weight of this burden he only knoweth that felt it, and God that gave strength to bear it: but as for my part, I hunt not for the praise of men, I desire only to profit the church of God: I had rather men should hold their peace then flatter. It is very well said of him, Augustin lib. 2. de Serm. dom. Si inter quos vivis te recte viventem non laudaverint, illi in errore sint: si autem laudaverint, tu in periculo es. I had rather other men should be in a small error, than I in great danger. Epictetus' wise saying is much commended: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sustine, abstine, sustain, and abstain I would we might part it between us: sustine hath been mine, I have endured the labour▪ I would abstine might be theirs, that they would abstain from ill speaking. Lastly, if I have taken upon me more than is performed, I have done foolishly: for that old verse might have warned me sufficiently, Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, aptam— viribus. But I trust, by the gracious assistance of God, I have in some small measure accomplished, that I would, and I say with Augustin, Gratias ago Deo, qui quantum voluit donando, quod voluit, fari promisit, et v●i voluit tacendum, linguae terminum posuit. For it is God that gave me strength to proceed so far as I have done, and hath set me my bounds, which I should not pass: for no m●n may exceed the line and measure of his gifts, 2. Corin. 10.14. Thus I end, commending these my labours to the charitable and christian judgement of the Church of God, whom I desire to profit, and to your honours protection, whom I wish in virtue and honour to tread your Father's path, and both of you to live so long as it pleaseth God, to his glory, and the comfort of his Church, and afterward to be everlastingly rewarded in heaven, through the only merits of Christ jesus, to whom be praise for ever. Your Honours to command in the Lord Christ, Andrew Willet. HERE ENSVE THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE FIVE OTHER POpish Sacraments: Penance, Matrimony, Confirmation, Orders, Extreme Unction. THE FOURTEENTH CONTROVERSY, of popish Penance. Unto this controversy belong these questions following, First, of the name Penance, whether it be rightly given. 2. Whether that which they call Penance, but we much better, Repentance, be a Sacrament. 3. Whether there be any other Sacrament of repentance beside Baptism. 4. Of the essential parts of penance, as the matter and form, and of the 3. material parts, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction: with an appendix, whether repentance go before faith. 5. Of Contrition, 1. The cause thereof, 2. The quantity thereof, 3. Whether it be joined with faith, 4. Whether it be satisfactory, 5. Whether contrition be necessary for venial sins, 6. Of contrition which only proceedeth of fear. 6. Of Auricular confession, 1. Whether it be necessary, 2. whether it be a divine ordinance, 3. To whom it is to be made, 4. Of the time. 7. Of satisfaction, with the several branch●s of this question. 8. First, of penal injunctions, 1. Whether necessary, 2. By whom to be imposed. Secondly, of indulgences, 1. Whether there be any such, 2. The ground of them, 3. In whose power they be. 9 The circumstances of penance, 1. Their habit, 2. Their works, 3. Of the time of their penance. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE name of Penance. The Papists. THe Latin word Poenitentia, which they translate, Penance, being derived of error 1 poena, doth signify (say they) not only confession and amendment of life, but contrition and sorrow for the offence, and painful satisfaction, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 7. Argum. Math. 11.21. the word must needs signify, sorrowful, painful, and satisfactory repentance, Rhemist. Math. 3.2. The Protestants. Ans. THe place quoted out of S. Matthew, proveth no such thing: where our Saviour saith, that tire and S●don would have repent in sackcloth and ashes: which is no satisfaction for sin, but an outward sign of true sorrow for sin. Argum. The Greek word every where used, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth, emendationem mentis, the change or amendment of the mind; and no such outward satisfactory penance as they pretend. Wherefore it is more fitly englished, Repentance. And although the Latin word Poenitentia do not properly express the Greek word, to the which resipiscere, & resipiscentia, repentance and to repent do better answer: yet agere poenitentiam, in Latin, is not to do penance, as the Rhemists translate it, but is all one, as to say, repent, yea, and so the Rhemists themselves read, be penitent. Mark 1.15. and not, do penance. And Act. 11.18. they translate, poenitentiam, repentance. De poenitentia, ca 9 Augustine thus taketh this word poenitentia, Rectè poenitens quicquid sordium contraxit, oportet ut abluat saltem mentis lachrymis. The true penitent man must at the least wash away his sins with the tears of the mind. If then repentance be in the soul, what is become of this outward satisfactory penance? THE SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER THERE be any Sacrament of penance. The Papists. error 2 CHrist (they say) instituted the Sacrament of penance, when he breathed upon his Apostles after his resurrection, and said unto them: Receive ye the holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: whose sins ye retain, they are retained. joh. 20.22. The faculty of the Priesthood consisting in remitting of sins, is here bestowed upon the Apostles, Rhemist. annot. joh. 20. sect. 5. Hereupon they are bold to conclude, that penance is truly and properly a Sacrament, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. canon. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de penitent. cap. 10. Ans. 1. If the power of remission of sins were here first instituted, how could the Apostles baptise or minister the Lords supper before, without power to remit sins to the penitent? Christ therefore in this place doth but renew and confirm the authority of their Apostleship, which was granted to them before, Math. 18.18. Secondly, this power here given, is principally exercised by preaching of the word of God, and denouncing publicly or privately the promises of God, for remission of sins to the penitent, or the threats and judgement of God, in binding the sins of the obstinate and impenitent: So Luke 20.24. Christ commandeth his Apostles to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name. Thirdly, we confess also a judiciary power of the keys, in binding and losing, which is exercised in ecclesiastical discipline, in punishng and absolving according to the word of God: as the incestuous person was bound, when he was delivered up to Satan, 1. Cor. 5.5. he was loosed again, when he was restored to the Church, 2. Cor. 2.7. But neither this nor the other was commended to the Church as a Sacrament. The Protestants. TRue repentance we do acknowledge, which is a dying to sin, and a walking in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. But a Sacrament of repentance we find none in Scripture, and therefore we deny it. Argum. 1. In every Sacrament there is an external sensible element, as water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's Supper: but there is none in their penance: Ergo, no Sacrament. Bellarm. answereth, that the words of absolution and confession, are the outward signs in penance: it is not necessary it should be a visible sign: it is a sensible sign being audible, cap. 11. Ans. 1. There must be the word beside the element: as Augustine saith, Accedat verbum ad elementum, Let the word be joined to the element: and it maketh a Sacrament: the word itself cannot be the element: for the same thing cannot both sanctify and be sanctified. And if the audible word be the element, by this reason the preaching of the word also shallbe a Sacrament. Argu. 2. There was repentance and absolution of sins both, in the old testament: for both David confessed and was sorry for his sin, and the Prophet Nathan pronounced forgiveness from God, 2. Sam. 12.13. so likewise john preached repentance for remission of sins, and the people came and confessed their sins: here were all things necessary for true repentance, yet was it no Sacrament all this while, as they themselves confess, which they hold to be instituted after Christ's resurrection, Trident. council. sess. 14. cap. 1. Why then should it be rather a Sacrament now, then before? Augustine thus writeth, Sacramentum ideo dicitur, quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: It is called a Sacrament, because one thing is seen, Serm. de baptis. ad infants. another understood. And then he saith, Quid tale aut ipsi vident, aut alijs queunt ostendere in eo, quod sacramentum poenitentiae vocant: But neither do they see, or can show to others, any such visible sign in that which they call the Sacrament of repentance Hear Augustine denieth repentance to be a Sacrament, because it hath no visible sign. THE THIRD QUESTION, WHETHER THERE be any other Sacrament of repentance, beside Baptism. The Papists. error 3 Baptism serveth only, they say, for remission of sins done before: for sins committed after Baptism, the Sacrament of penance, which is a distinct Sacrament from Baptism, is appointed for a remedy: and therefore is fitly called, Secunda tabula post naufragium. The second table of refuge after shipwreck, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. canon. 2. Argum. S. john saith, If we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us: 1. Epist. 1.19. he saith not, that by the memory of Baptism, but by confession, which is a part of penance, our sins are forgiven, Bellarm. cap. 13. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we say not, that by the bare memory or remembrance of baptism, sins after committed are done away: but that the sacramental force of Baptism doth extend itself to our whole life, that is, to be a seal unto us of remission of all our sins in the blood of Cbrist. Secondly, so that confession of our sins is not a taking away of the force of baptism, but a more effectual applying thereof, as the people which were baptised by john confessed also their sins. Argu. We acknowledge no other Sacrament of repentance, but baptism: for so the scripture calleth it, The baptism of repentance for remission of sins. Mark 1.4. De fide ad Petrum. cap. 29. So Augustine calleth Baptism, Sacramentum fidei, et poenitentiae, the Sacrament of faith and repentance: what need we then seek for a new Sacrament of repentance, which cannot any where be found in Scripture? THE FOURTH QUESTION, OF THE essential parts of Penance. THE FIRST PART, OF THE MATTER and form of popish penance. The Papists. error 4 THe form of this Sacrament, say they, consisteth in the words of absolution, pronounced by the Minister, the matter thereof is the contrition, confession, and satisfaction of the party penitent, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 14. cap. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 15. The Protestants. NEither is their penance a Sacrament, neither can these be parts of a Sacrament. Argum. 1. In every Sacrament there are two things required: res terrena, and actio externa, the earthly thing or element, as is water in Baptism, and the external action: neither doth the element alone, nor the action alone make a sacrament: as in baptism there is both water, which is the matter: and the washing, that is the action. Wherefore seeing in their penance there is nothing but the action of the Minister, and the action of the receiver, it can be no sacrament. Argum. 2. The parts of every sacrament, as the form, the matter, must be instituted of Christ: But this are they not able to show for the form and matter of penance, namely, the institution of Christ: Ergo, it is no sacrament. THE SECOND PART OF THIS QUESTION, OF the three material parts of popish Penance, contrition, confession, satisfaction. The Papists. THese three (they say) are the true and proper parts of penance, contrition, error 5 and painful sorrow of the hart, confession to the Priest, and satisfaction to God for our sins, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. can. 4. Rhemist. Math. 3. sect. 2. Argu. Contrition is proved, Psal. 51.17. A contrite hart is a sacrifice to God. Confession, Math. 3. They were baptised in jordane confessing their sins. Satisfaction▪ Math. 11.21. They would have repent long ago in sackcloth and ashes, Bellarm. cap. 19 Ans. 1. That godly sorrow and contrition of the hart, is necessary to true repentance, we never will deny, but that this sorrow is any satisfaction to God's justice, we abhor it as a monstrous blasphemy. Secondly, Confession and acknowledgement of our sins unto God, and in some cases, where the conscience is not satisfied, to the Minister or some other faithful man, we do willingly grant: but that it is necessary to make general confession of sins to the Priest, that place proveth it not: for john had had shriving work enough for many years, to hear every man's particular confession: Thirdly, that sitting in sackcloth and ashes, was no satisfaction for sin, but an outward sign of true sorrow for sin. The Protestants. WE do make two parts only of true repentance, according to the scriptures, that is, the mortifying of the old man with his works, by dying unto sin: unto the which belongeth true sorrow, and contrition of hart for our sins, 2. Corinth. 7.11. acknowledgement and confession thereof before God, 2. Sam. 12.13. and a perfect hatred and detestation of sin, and indignation with ourselves for the same, 2. Corinth. 7.11. The other part is the renewing and quickening of the new man in us, which consisteth partly in setting our consciences at peace with God, our sins being forgiven us, Rom. 5.1. and working in us a zeal, study, care and desire of newness of life, 2. Corin. 7.11. these two parts only we find in Scripture. Argum. Isai. 1.17. Cease to do evil: Learn to do good: we must die unto sin and walk in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. Put off the old man, put on the new, Coloss. 3.9. Serm. 66. Augustine saith, Fructus est dignus poenitentia, transacta deflere peccata, & ea iterum non agere, This is true repentance, to lament for sins past, and not to commit the same again: though this be no perfect definition of repentance, yet we see that both confession and satisfaction are excluded. AN APPENDIX, WHETHER REpentance go before faith. The Papists. error 6 THeir opinion is, that repentance goeth before justification by faith, and that it is a way rather unto faith and justification in the remission of sins: poenitentia est via ad remissionem peccatorum, et prior justificatione, Bellarm, cap. 19 Argum. Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptised in the name of Christ for the remission of sins: Remission of sins followeth repentance: Ergo justification also and faith, Bellarm. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, this place proveth not, that remission of sins followeth repentance, because baptism was given after repentance, for Baptism doth not give remission of sins, but it is a seal only and confirmation of our faith, in the remission of sins. 2. Neither is remission of sins obtained by our repentance: but we are already, being once called, justified before God, by the remission of our sins, and imputation of the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 4.7.8. By repentance and other works that follow, our calling is made sure, 2. Peter 1.10. and our salvation finished unto ourselves, Philip. 2.10. and our faith perfited. Argum. justification goeth before sanctification: for this is the fruit of the other: but repentance is part of our sanctification, renovation, or regeneration, being called by S. Paul, A walking in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. Ergo, it followeth and cometh after our justification. And seeing without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6: how should our repentance be acceptable to God, unless it proceeded of faith? faith than is initiate and begun in us before repentance, which we deny not, by true repentance and other fruits of sanctification, to be daily strengthened and increased. Augustine saith, No man is justified but by the grace of jesus Christ: Non solum remissione peccatorum, sed priùs ipsius inspiratione fidei & timoris dei, donec sanet omnes languores nostros. Not only by remission of sins, but first, by inspiring into us faith and the fear of God, till he have cured all our maladies. He saith (as we hear) that faith is inspired before we have remission of sins and the fear of God, without the which there is no true repentance. THE FIFT QUESTION, OF CONTRITION: the first part of their penance. THere are certain points which we do agree upon. 1. We grant, that true contrition and sorrow of the heart is necessary unto repentance, and that it standeth very well with the liberty of the Gospel, and is profitable for Christians, 2. Corinth. 7.10. 2. That true contrition is joined both with a full hatred and detestation of sin committed, 1. Corinth. 11.31. We must judge and condemn ourselves, as also with a full purpose to amend our lives, Act. 11.23. Let us then now see what difference of opinion there is between us concerning contrition. The Papists. 1. THey hold that contrition is neither wholly of man's free will, nor yet wholly of God: but that man by his free will, helped of God, is able to repent: error 7 so that he doth only, Deo adiwante, poenitere, He is brought to repentance, God only helping and assisting him, Bellarm. de penitent. lib. 2. cap. 3. The Protestants. TRue contrition of heart, as all other good thoughts in us, as they are good, come only of God: our cogitations indeed are our own, but all the goodness of them is the mere gift of God, jam. 1.17. Argum. 1. Timoth. 2.25. If at any time God will give them repentance: Repentance then is the gift of God. And Augustine writing upon these very words, saith, Quantumlibet praebeat poenitentiam, nisi ipse dederit, quis agit poenitentiam? Although he never so much give occasion of repentance, yet unless he bestow upon us the full gift of repentance, no man is able to repent. Thus he plainly distinguisheth between praebere poenitentiam, to offer occasion to repent: as he proveth out of S. Paul, Rom. 2.4. The bountifulness of God calleth thee to repentance: and dare poenitentiam, to give or grant repentance. But if God should only help our free will, and work together with us to repentance, and not do all alone himself, he should rather praebere, then dare poenitentiam: offer occasion by stirring of us up to repentance, then grant us repentance itself, which were contrary to the Apostle. The Papists. error 8 2. THey teach, that contrition ought to be perfect, because it must proceed from the love of God, which is the most perfect kind of love, Catechis. Roman. pag. 439: and that the greatness of the grief ought to be answerable to the quantity of the sin: So they conclude, that a man shall never know when he is sufficiently contrite, Thom. Aquinas: for he must be contrite for every great sin he hath committed, Tileman Heshus. loc. 9 de penitent. err. 25.27.28.32. The Protestants. WHat is this else but a plain doctrine of desperation? for when is a man able so perfectly to be contrite, as his love toward God ought to be perfect? or how can his sorrow be equivalent to the weight of his sins? or can a man remember all his sins, that he should be sorry for? Argum. 1. The sorrow of Christians is not infinite or uncertain, but it is determined and limited. Saint Paul saith, That he should not be swallowed up of too much heaviness, 2. Corinth. 2.7. And again, My Epistle made you sorry, though for a season, 2. Corinth. 7.8. Augustine saith, Ista est vera poenitentia, quando quis sic convertitur, ut non revertatur: De tempor. in natali. serm. 3. This is true repentance, when a man doth so turn unto God, that he return not unto sin. When a man therefore hath in this manner repent, he may be sure that he hath mourned sufficiently: It is therefore untrue, that a man is uncertain when he hath sorrowed enough. The Papists. error 9 3. COntrition (they say) as it is not altogether without hope to obtain mercy: so can it not have certitudinem remissionis peccatorum, a certainty or undoubted assurance of remission of sins, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 9 Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. The Protestants. GOdly sorrow and contrition bringeth joy and comfort to the soul in the end, with undoubted assurance of the forgiveness and remission of sins. Argum. 1. Godly sorrow worketh in the true penitent person, a cleared of the mind, 2. Corinth. 7.11: but the soul and conscience cannot be cleared and set at rest, unless we be persuaded that our sins are forgiven us, Ergo. Argum. 2. All hope is certain, and bringeth undoubted assurance, and therefore it is called the anchor of the soul, Heb. 6.19. Wherefore either contrition is void of hope altogether, (which they will not grant) or if it have any hope, it is sure and stable, and worketh a full persuasion and assurance of the mercy of God. Augustine saith, Petrus mox à Domino indulgentiam accepit, De tempor. serm. 66. qui amarissimè flevit trinae negationis culpam: Peter strait way received pardon and indulgence, when he had most bitterly bewailed the sin of his threefold denial of Christ. How could Peter immediately have felt and received the remission of that great sin, if the Lord had not assured his conscience thereof? The Papists. 4. THey make contrition a part of satisfaction for our sins, and to be a cause error 10 of justification and remission of sins, not only in disposing and preparing of us thereunto, but in that thereby we verily obtain remission of our sins, Bellarm. lib. 2. de penitent. cap. 12. Arg. Luk. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved: Not only faith, but love or charity obtaineth remission of sins, Bellarm. ibid. Rhemist. in hunc locum. The Protestants. Ans. THe argument is not from the cause to the effect, but from the effect to the cause: for Christ doth not reason thus, she loved much, therefore many sins are forgiven her: but contrariwise, Many sins are forgiven her, therefore she loveth much. As the next words declare: to whom little is remitted, he loveth little. And our Saviour saith in plain words in the last verse, That her faith had saved her, whereof her love was an effect. Argum. That the contrition of the heart is no means of our justification, nor a meriting cause or procuring of remission of sins: Saint Paul showeth, Rom. 4.5, 6. To him that believeth faith is counted for righteousness: And David declareth the blessedness of that man, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works: It is faith then only that obtaineth remission of sins: and a man is justified without any respect had to his works. Therefore neither contrition, nor any other work inward or outward, procureth remission of sins, but faith only is the mean. So Augustine saith, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum: Works follow a man already justified, they go not before to justification, De fide & operib. cap. 14. Therefore the work of contrition is not available to justification. The Papists. 5. COntrition (they say) is not necessary for venial or small offences, neither error 11 is a man bound thereunto, So. lib. 4. distinct. 17. articul. 3. The Protestants. THis assertion is clean contrary to scripture: for the Prophet David prayeth not only to be kept from presumptuous sins, Psalm. 19.13. but even to be cleansed from his secret faults, vers. 12. Augustine agreeth: Non solum propter vitae huius ignorantiam, sed etiam propter ipsum pulverem mundi huius, qui pedibus adhaerescit, quotidianam habere debemus poenitentiam: Not only for the ignorances of this life, but even for that dross and dust of the world, which hangeth upon our feet, we ought daily to repent us. He meaneth the lesser and smaller 'scapes of our life. The Papists. error 12 6. THere is a kind of contrition that proceedeth only from the fear of punishment, when a man doth leave sinning, not for any love or delight he hath in God, but only for fear of damnation: Even this contrition also is good and profitable: yet this servile fear is at length clean driven out by charity. But there remaineth still in the godly an awe and fear of God, and his judgements, with mistrust, and fear of hell and damnation: as Math. 10. Fear him that can cast body and soul into hell, Rhemist. john 4. sect. 6. Bellarm. lib. 2.17. The Protestants. FIrst, we acknowledge that the fear of punishment is necessary in the beginning, to make a way for true love to enter, as the bristle or needle (as Augustine saith) maketh room for the thread to enter. We also confess, that there is a continual fear and reverence of God in the godly, such as children have of their parents: but as for any mistrust or fear of hell and damnation, after love be once entered, and we made the children of God, which breedeth terror and anxiety of conscience, it is clean expelled, and thrust out of the doors by love. Argum. So saith the Apostle, There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, and maketh us to have confidence in the day of judgement, 1. joh. 4.17, 18. But he that feareth damnation and is afraid of the day of judgement, cannot have confidence in that day. So Augustine: Quid dicimus de illo, qui caepit timere diem judicij? si perfecta in illo esset charitas, non timeret? What say we to him, that feareth the day of judgement? if love were perfect in him, he would not fear it? THE sixth QUESTION, OF AURICULAR Confession, the second part of penance. The Papists. error 13 NOne can rightly seek for absolution at the Priest's hands, unless they confess particularly at the least all their mortal sins, whether they be committed in mind, heart, will and cogitation only, or in word, and work, with all the necessary circumstances and differences of the same, Rhemist. joh. 20. sect. 5. And this sacramental confession, as they call it, must be made secretly to the Priest, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. can. 6. Argum. 1. This wonderful power of remitting and retaining of sins, which was given to the Apostles and their successors, joh. 20.22. were given them in vain, if no man were bound to seek for absolution at their hands: which can not be had of them without distinct utterance to them of our sins: for they cannot rule the cases of conscience, unless they have exact knowledge and cogitation of their sins, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1. God hath not made his ministers in Christ's stead judges of cases of conscience, as though there were in them an actual power to remit and absolve sins: but their office is only to declare and set forth unto all penitent persons, the promises of God for remission of sins, & the severity of God's judgement against impenitent persons: which is especially performed in the preaching and applying of the word either publicly or privately: as S. Paul calleth the Gospel committed unto him, The word of reconciliation, 2. Cor. 5.16. 2. A man therefore may by their ministery, which are the preachers of reconciliation, find remission of sins, without a particular declaration thereof: neither is it necessary for them to have so exact a knowledge of our sins, seeing they are not absolute judges of the conscience, but the ministers and ambassadors of reconciliation, 2. Corinth. 5.20. 3. And Ministers are not to stay while suit is made unto them for their help, but they ought to exhort and desire men to be reconciled to God by their ministery. Argum. 2. As the Priests in the law had only authority to discern the leprosy of the people, and therefore Christ sendeth the lepers to the Priest, Luk. 17.14. so men must reveal the spiritual leprosy of sin to the Priest, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. First, the leprosy was not healed by the Priest, but only declared to be healed: so sins are declared to be forgiven by the Priest, not properly forgiven. Secondly, the Priest received not knowledge of all diseases, but of this, that was contagious: therefore it would not follow hereupon, that all sins are to be confessed to the Priest: but such as are notorious, where public confession is by Church discipline enjoined: and such confession we deny not. Thirdly, the argument followeth not from the Priests of the law, to the Ministers of the Gospel: for the Priesthood of the law is translated wholly unto Christ, who hath all knowledge to discern, and power to heal our spiritual diseases. The Protestants. COnfession of sins, such as the scripture alloweth, we do acknowledge: as namely these four kinds: There are private confessions, either to God alone, as Daniel confesseth, 9.4. or for the easing of our conscience, to man also, as to him whom we have offended, Math. 5.24. Or to any other faithful man, the Minister or some other, that we may be helped and comforted by our mutual prayers, jam. 5.16. There are also two kinds of public confession, either of the whole congregation together, Nehem. 9.3. or of some one or more, that make public confession of their sin, for the satisfying of the congregation, whom they have offended: which belongeth to Ecclesiastical discipline, 2. Corinth. 2.6. But this particular confession of all sins, yea of them that are secret, and to none but the Priest, is an Antichristian yoke and too heavy for Christians to bear. Arg. 1. It is not necessary to make confession at all unto men: the Prophet David confessed only unto God, Against thee O Lord only have I sinned, Psal. 51.4. Augustine also saith, Quid mihi cum hominibus ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi sint languores meos? What have men to do to hear my confessions, as though they were able to heal my sores? Confess. lib. 10.3. Argum. 2. If a man otherwise cannot find ease of conscience, but will open his sins to men: it is not always necessary he should seek to the Minister, though it be most convenient, if he be a fit man: any other faithful godly man may serve: for so the Apostle biddeth us, Acknowledge our faults, not to the priest, but one to another, jam. 5.16. Whereupon Augustine writeth, Peccata nostra debemus non solùm Deo sed etiam sanctis & Deum timentibus confiteri: We must confess our sins not only to God, but to men also that fear God: He saith not, Sacerdotibus, only to the Priests, Homil. 12. Argum. 3. Such a particular enumeration of sins is not necessary, neither is it possible: It sufficeth, where our sins are kept from our sight, to say with the Prophet, Cleanse me from my secret sins, Psal. 19.12. Augustine saith, Quot habes in cord compunctiones facinorum, tot habe illic punctiones confessionum: Look how many sins do prick thy conscience, so must thy confession be. It is an uncomfortable doctrine to teach men to labour to remember all their sins, and to make a particular catalogue of them: they have work enough to be eased of those sins that lie heavy on the heart. AN APPENDIX OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES of Auricular confession. The Papists. 1. THis order and custom of Confession, they hold to be a divine ordinance, error 14 no human tradition, Concil. Tried sess. 14. can. 6.8. The Protestants. THey are never able to show that it had any divine institution: but it was a mere devise and invention of men. First, we read that Nectarius a good Bishop of Constantinople, did abrogate this custom of Confession upon this occasion, which had before time been used in that Church: for it was found out, that a certain woman of the city, under this pretence of confession, had unlawful company with the priest to whom she confessed: whereupon the good man abolished that custom, seeing more harm then good to come by it. Beza antith. Pap. cap. 7. And this act of his was approved by that famous preacher Chrysostome, who succeeded him in that see: but if it had been the ordinance of God, it ought not for some abuse to have been abolished. Augustine also saith, Si deest sacerdos, confiteatur proximo: De poenit. cap. 10. If a priest cannot be had, let a man confess to his neighbour: Ergo, to confess to a priest, is no certain ordinance of God: for than might it not be changed. The Papists. 2. IT is necessary that every man should confess to his own parish priest, error 15 Thom. ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 7. err. 46. The Protestants. YEa, but Augustine saith, Sacerdos, ut perfectus medicus, primùm sciat curare peccata sua, & tum detergere aliena: The priest as a cunning physician, must first know how to cure his own sins, before he can help another, De salutaribus docum. cap. 50. And in another place, Quaerat sacerdotem scientem ligare & solvere, ne ambo cadant in foveam: Let him seek a priest that knoweth how to bind and lose, lest both fall into the ditch, De penitent. cap. 10. But such an one cannot be had in every parish: for many times the parish priest is worse than he that cometh to be confessed: such an one, Augustine saith, is not to be taken, and therefore men should not in that case bind themselves to their popish priest. The Papists. 3. IT is enough for men once a year in the time of Lent, to confess themselves, error 16 Concil. Trid. sess. 14. can. 8. The Protestants. AVgustine saith contrary, Non tantum laici, sed etiam sacerdotes una die esse non debent sine poenitentia: Not only lay men, but not priests ought to be one day without repentance, In Apocal. hom. 2. His reason is, because they can not be one day without sin. THE SEVENTH QUESTION, of satisfaction. THis question containeth these parts: First, whether the sin being forgiven, there remain any punishment. 2. Whether the temporal punishment of this life may be redeemed by good works. 3. Whether the wrath of God may be satisfied for sin, and the punishment due unto the same. 4. Whether one man may satisfy for another: of these now in their order. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE PVNISHment remain, the sin being once pardoned. The Papists. error 17 THey do affirm, that it may stand with the justice of God to forgive the sin committed, & yet reserve the punishment, Concil. Triden. sess. 14. can. 14. Argum. The Lord forgave unto David the sin of adultery and murder, which he had committed, yet he punished him in the death of his child, 2. Sam. 12.13.14. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. The Protestants. Ans. THat cross was laid upon David, not as a punishment of his sin, but as a fatherly correction or chastisement, to exercise him & make him more careful for the time following: as Augustine saith, writing upon the same example: De peccator. merit. & remiss. lib. 2 34. Subsecutus est illius comminationis effectus, ut pietas hominis in illa humilitate exerceretur, atque probaretur: The effect of the threatening immediately followed, that David's godliness might thereby be tried and proved: He saith not, that David might thereby be punished. Argum. Christ said to the sick of the palsy, Mark. 2.5. Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Whereby our Saviour would have them to understand, that the sin being once forgiven, the sickness of the body, which was the punishment of sin, could not continue: for the cause being removed, the effect ceaseth. The afflictions of this life are the loving corrections of God to admonish us, not plagues to punish us: as Augustine saith well, Tota miseria generis humani dolor medecinalis, non sententia poenalis: The misery of man is but a medicinal grief, not a sentence of punishment: In Psalm. 138. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE Temporal punishment of this life may be redeemed by good works. The Papists. error 18 THat we may redeem and buy out as it were the punishments due to sin in this life, by other good works, it is their general sentence: and they prove it thus. Argum. Daniel said to Nabuchadnezzar the King, Redeem thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, cap. 4.24. Bellarm. cap. 3. The Protestants. Ans. THe text is rather thus to be read: Break off thy sins by righteousness: that is, leave off to do evil: as it is by Tremellius translated more agreeably to the Hebrew: for if redemption be here properly understood, it would follow that men may redeem not only the punishment of their sins, but the sins themselves: and so take Christ's office out of his hand. By true and faithful repentance, and other good works proceeding of faith, we may avoid Gods heavy judgement due to our sins, yet not for the merit or satisfaction of any work, but through the merits only of Christ. Argum. Look how our sins are forgiven, so is the punishment due unto them: but our sins are forgiven us freely in Christ, jerem. 31.34. Ergo, so is the punishment. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER A MAN may truly satisfy the wrath of God, for the punishment due unto sin. The Papists. IT is not a sufficient satisfaction, to believe that Christ hath abundantly satisfied error 19 for us; neither yet is it enough to amend and correct our lives: but God also must be satisfied for our sins, by the punishment and chastisement of ourselves, as by affliction laid upon us by God, or penance enjoined by the priest, or by prayer, fasting, alms deeds, which we do take up ourselves, Concil. Trid. sess. 14. can. 13. Rhemist. Matth. 11.21. Argum. 1. Matth. 3.8. Bring forth fruits worthy repentance: he preacheth satisfaction by doing worthy fruits of penance, as fasting, prayer, alms, and the like, Rhemist. Ans. Fruits worthy of repentance, are no satisfaction for sin, but arguments of true repentance, effects, not any part thereof. Argum. 2. judge yourselves, that you be not judged, 1. Corinth. 11.31. We must punish ourselves according to the weight of the sins past, Rhemist. And again saith the Apostle, What great punishment hath it wrought in you! 2. Corinth. 7.11. This is nothing else but the satisfactory punishment for our sins, Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 8. Ans. The Apostle meaneth nothing else, but an hearty and earnest sorrow for our sins, whereby we do judge and condemn, and as it were punish ourselves, yet we are far from making any satisfaction hereby for our sins: as Augustine saith, Omnis iniquitas puniatur necesse est, aut à poenitente homine, aut vindicante Deo: vis non puniat? puni tu: antequam ipse intendat ut puniat, tu confitendo praeveni & puni. In Psal. 58. All sin must needs be punished either of man himself repenting, or God revenging: if thou wilt not have him punish, punish thou, before he intent to punish: prevent him by thy confession, and punish thyself. So then this punishment of ourselves is nothing else, but true repentance and confession of our sins. The Protestants. THat satisfaction ought to be made unto men, either by restitution, as Zacheus restored that which he had wrongfully gotten: or by reconciling ourselves to those, whom we have offended, as Matth. 5.24. we do willingly grant: but that the wrath of God may be appeased and satisfied for our sins, or the punishment due unto the same by any work of ours, it is a great blasphemy, and clean contrary to the course of Scripture. Argum. 1. That it is sufficient to return unto God by true repentance and amendment of life, without any satisfaction, either for our sin, or the punishment of sin: the Prophet Ezechiel showeth, where speaking of the conversion of a wicked man, he saith, His iniquities shall no more be mentioned, or laid to his charge, chap. 18.22. But if after the sin remitted, there should remain some punishment behind, his sins should still be remembered and mentioned: there is therefore no satisfaction for the punishment of sin, because none remaineth. Argum. 2. Isai. 43.25. I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake. Likewise, 53.4. He hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. God of his free mercy doth forgive our sin: Christ also hath fully satisfied for us: Ergo, there is no satisfaction in us: we are made whole by his stripes, and not our own. Argum. 3. Our prayers, fastings, alms, and what works soever, are neither meritorious, nor satisfactory: for when we have done all, we are but unprofitable servants, and we did no more than was our duty, Luk. 17.10. In Matth. serm. 16. De penitent. cap. 10 Augustine saith, Peccasti in fratrem? fac satis, & sanatus es. Hast thou offended thy brother? satisfy him, and thou art healed. Qui multos offendit peccando, placare multos debet satisfaciendo: He that hath offended many in sinning, must appease many by satisfying them. These kinds of satisfaction both publicly and privately we acknowledge: but satisfaction to God, neither he, nor we acknowledge. Lachrymas lego, satisfactionem non lego: I read of Peter's tears, saith he, De tempor. serm. 117. but of no satisfaction. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER ONE man may satisfy for another. The Papists. error 20 Satisfactory works are not only profitable to the sufferers themselves, but also for other their fellow members in Christ, and one may bear the burden, and discharge the debt of another, Rhemist. Coloss. 1. sect. 4. Argum The passions of the Saints are suffered for the common good of the whole body, as Saint Paul saith: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fulfil that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ for his body's sake, which is the Church, Coloss. 1.24. Here Saint Paul's afflictions are meritorious and satisfactory for the Colossians, Rhemist. Ans. The Apostles sufferings were for the glory of God, and the confirmation of their faith: but therefore it followeth not, that they were meritorious, either for himself, or others. His sufferings are said to be Christ's, who suffereth in his members, not that they receive any force from Christ to be satisfactory, but because he was made like and conformable by his sufferings unto Christ, Rom. 8.17. Augustine also thus expoundeth the place, Non dixit, pressurarum mearum, sed Christi, quia membrum erat Christi: He saith not, of my sufferings, Tract. in johan. 100L. but of Christ's, because he was a member of Christ: they are not then the sufferings of Christ, as though they received a satisfactory power from Christ: but because he was a member of Christ, who suffered together in and with his members. The Protestants. NOne can merit or satisfy for themselves, much less for others: neither can one man bear the burden, or pay the debt of another man's sin. Argum. The Scripture saith, The soul that sinneth, the same shall die, Ezech. 18.20. Every man shall bear his own burden, Galath. 6.5. None can redeem his brother, or give a price to God for him, Psalm. 49.8. Augustine upon those words, john. 16.23. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, he will give it you: Exaudiuntur quip omnes sancti pro seipsis: non autem exaudiuntur pro omnibus, vel amicis, vel inimicis, etc. The Saints are heard praying for themselves: Tract in johan. 102. but they are not heard praying for all their friends or enemies, because it is not said simply, He will give, but, He will give to you. Ergo, much less can they satisfy for others, if their prayers be not heard always for others. THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF INDVLgences and penal injunctions. THE FIRST PART: WHETHER Penal and painful works are necessary unto repentance. The Papists. NOt only amendment, and ceasing to sin, or repentance in heart before error 21 God is always enough to obtain full reconcilement, but there must be outward penalty, correction, and chastisement beside, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect. 2. Argum. The incestuous person was rebuked of many, 2. Corinth. 2.6. which word implieth, beside his inward repentance, outward correction and chastisement. The Protestants. Ans. We acknowledge, that in notorious sins, and offensive to the Church, as this of the young man's was, inward repentance is not sufficient, but that after sharp discipline, by the outward testification of sorrow, and public confession, satisfaction must be made to the Church: but it followeth not that this course should be taken for all sins, which a man repenteth him of. And yet we grant that outward signs of our sorrow are always necessary in true repentance, not as satisfactory means to redeem our sins, but only as infallible tokens and effects of our repentance. As Augustine saith, Satis durus est, cuius mentis dolorem oculi carnis nequeunt declarare: He is hard hearted, the grief of whose mind, the eyes of his flesh do not show forth, de penitent. cap. 9 Argum. There are but two essential parts of repentance, and true conversion unto God: To turn from our sins, and lead an holy life. So saith the Lord by the Prophet, If the wicked will return from his sins and keep all my statutes, Ezech. 18.21. This is all God requireth, without any other penal works: wherefore ceasing from sin and amendment of life, which necessarily include the true sorrow and conversion of the heart, are sufficient for repentance. THE SECOND PART, BY WHOM penal works are to be inflicted. The Papists. error 22 THe priests only, they say, have power to enjoin works of penance, as affliction of body, mulct, penalty, correction, by almsdeeds, fasting, abstinence and such like, Conc. Tried sess. 14▪ can. 15. Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect. 2. Argum. To them is given authority to bind, and lose: Ergo, to enjoin penance, Bellarm. cap. 5. lib. 4. The Protestants. Ans. 1. SOme kind of mulctes' Church discipline is not to deal withal: as bodily punishment, and pecuniary fines, which are to be imposed at the discretion of the magistrate. Secondly, we grant a wholesome use of the keys in Church discipline, in punishing and cleansing of notorious offenders in the open face of the congregation: but privately to enjoin men penance for their secret sins is an Antichristian yoke. Argum. True repentance is a free work, not of compulsion, or coaction: Saint Paul exhorteth men to judge themselves, that they be not judged, 1. Corinth. 11.31. But now when penance is laid upon a man, and not voluntarily taken of himself, he is judged rather of another, he doth not judge himself. Augustine saith, Quem poenitet, punit seipsum, prorsus aut punis aut punit Deus, ut ille non puniat, puni tu. He that repenteth, punisheth himself: either thou punishest, or God: if thou wilt not have God to do it, punish thyself. A man therefore must punish himself, he must not be punished of another in his repentance to Godward: for of outward chastisement to the world, now is not the question. THE THIRD PART, OF PARDONS and Indulgences. The Papists. 1. THe principal Magistrates of the Church are no less authorized to pardon, then to punish, & to remit the temporal punishment due to sinners, error 23 the offence being first forgiven, which we call an Indulgence or pardon, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2.4. Concil. Tried sess. 25. Argum. To whom you forgive any thing, I forgive also, 2. Corinth. 2.10. Here the Apostle forgiveth the young man a piece of his punishment, when he might have kept him longer in penance for his offence, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. 1. We deny not, but that the Church may release such public exercise of humiliation, which is enjoined offenders for trial of their repentance, and some satisfaction of the Church, when it seethe, that they are sufficiently humbled. But it followeth not, that the Church therefore may dispense with any necessary part of repentance towards God. Secondly, whereas you say, the Apostle, notwithstanding his rebuke was sufficient, might have kept the young man still in temporal punishment: it is clean contrary to the Apostles own rule, who persuadeth the Corinthians to forgive him, lest he should be overcome of too much heaviness, vers. 7. The Apostle therefore would neither forgive nor release him, before they had forgiven him, and he had satisfied the whole Church, verse 10. Neither would he keep him longer in punishment, having once sorrowed sufficiently, verse 6. The Apostle therefore did neither bind nor release him at his own pleasure, but as he saw repentance to be wrought in the offender. The Protestants. THe power which the Pope and popish Bishops do challenge unto themselves, in giving Pardons and Indulgences, is most blasphemous. 1 They do take upon them to release both the punishment of this life, and the pains of purgatory also, and say, that their pardons profit both the dead and the living, Bull. Leon. 10. 2 They pardon not only the punishment, but the sin both passed, and to come, for days, years, hundreds, thousands of years: how so ever the Rhemists would bear us in hand that an indulgence is a release but of the punishment. Such was the first jubilee pardon granted by Boniface 8. an. 1300. And another by Leo the 10. an. 1513. See also the Boston pardons granted by Pope Innocent, Pope Iu●ye, Pope Clement, which gave them release of all their sins for five hundred years, Fox. pag. 1178. 3 And, which filled up the measure of iniquity, they set their pardons to sale: as in Pope Leo his time, his pardoners for ten shillings would give to any man power, Fox. p. 844. to deliver one soul at his pleasure out of purgatory. Argum. The scripture saith, that God only forgiveth sins, Mark. 2.7. And that Christ no otherwise, then as God, forgave sins, vers. 10. His Apostles only as his ministers and Ambassadors, and in his name, declare and pronounce remission of sins, 2. Corinth. 5.19. Wherefore there is no such power given unto men, at their pleasure to bind or lose. De Baptis. lib. 3. cap. 18 Augustine saith, Non secundum arbitrium hominum tenentur, aut soluuntur peccata, sed ad arbitrium Dei, & orationes sanctorum: Sins are not loosed, or retained at the pleasure of men, but according to the will of God, and prayers of his Church. The Papists. error 24 2. THe satisfactory and meritorious works of the Saints which do abound, being communicable, and applicable to the faithful that want, are the very ground of the indulgences and pardons of the Church, and the very treasure thereof, and to be dispensed according to every man's need by the pastors of the Church, 2. Corinth. 2. sec. 5. Coloss. 1. sect. 4. The Protestants. HEre are many blasphemies and untruths couched together: 1 That a man's penalties may exceed and be greater than his sins, and so his abounding may supply another man's want: for thus the Rhemists say: which cannot stand with the justice of God, to punish a man more than he hath deserved. And it is contrary to the Scriptures: Enter not into judgement with thy servant: for in thy sight shall none that liveth be justified, Psalm. 143.2. And job saith, If the Lord should call him to account, he should not answer one to a thousand, 9.3. 2 How can the Church governors dispense the merits of one to another▪ Who made them stewards of another man's good? Ye say also the contrary yourselves, That the abounding passions of the Saints are applicable to others by the sufferers intention, Rhem. 1. Colo. 2.2. Than not by the Church's dispensation. 3 It is a great blasphemy, that one may be helped by another man's merits, and it doth derogate from the death of Christ, whose only merits are the treasure and storehouse of the Church: The most righteous man that ever was, can but save his own soul, Ezech. 14.14. And that only by Christ. Augustine saith: unusquisque pro se rationem reddet, In Matt. serm. 22. nec alieno testimonio quisquam adiwatur apud Deum, & vix sibi quisque sufficit, etc. Every man shall give account for himself, before God no man is helped by the testimony of another: the testimony of his own conscience doth hardly suffice for himself. The Papists. 3. THe dispensing of pardons and indulgences, is only committed, they say, error 25 to the chief magistrates the Popes and Bishops: and as the Bishops in their Diocese have especial cases reserved to themselves, wherein inferior Priests are not to deal: so the Pope hath also his proper reservations, wherein other Prelates are not to meddle, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. cap. 7. The cases reserved to the Pope are 51. in number, Fox. pag. 785. The Bishop of Paris, ann. 1515 reserved these cases to himself, to dispense in murder, witchcraft, sacrilege, heresy, simony, adultery, ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 9 de poeniten. ere. 63. Likewise the years of their pardons are limited: Bishops may not exceed 40. days pardon: the Pope may be lavish in his hundreds and thousands, yea, and this reservation of cases, standeth not only with the external policy of the Church, but is of force even before God, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. cap. 7. The Protestants. WE will not much contend with them about reservation of cases: for we acknowledge no such power to give pardons, or indulgences, either in superior or inferior Priests: yet we will show how this devise of theirs standeth not with their own doctrine. Argum. 1. It is a greater power to remit the sin, then to release the punishment: but every Priest hath the greater power, as they say, to remit sins, yea as fully as hath the Pope himself: Allen in his book of pardons, cap. 2. Ergo, why have they not the less power, which is by indulgence to dispense with the punishment? And that of these two, the remission of sins is the greater, it is confessed by the Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect 6. Argum. 2. In the point of death, the reservation of cases hath no place: but at that time every Priest may absolve from all manner sins and punishment, Concil. Trident. sess. 14▪ cap. 7. But every hour is with some, and aught to be with all, the point of death: because we are uncertain when it cometh, and therefore ought always to be in a readiness. Therefore even by their own rule every Priest hath at all time's authority to absolve in all cases. Again, if those words of Christ be spoken to all ministers and preachers of the Gospel, john. 20.22. Whose sins ye retain, etc. (which cannot be denied) to them all then is committed equally that power of binding and losing, which is exercised by the preaching of the word. THE NINTH QUESTION, OF THE ceremonies and circumstances of penance. The Papists. error 26 1. THey enjoin their penitent Clients to poll their heads, and their women to wear a vail, to go in black, to put on sackcloth, to look sourly: and such like presumptions they have concerning the habit of those that do penance, Bellarm. lib. 1. de penitent. cap. 22. The Protestants. Our Saviour clean contrary biddeth his Disciples, not to look sourly, nor to disfigure themselves, when they fast and repent, or to show any other outward token of their sorrow, but to do it secretly between themselves and God, to wash their face, to anoint themselves with oil, that it appear not to men that they fast, Matth. 6.16.17. Augustine also answering a certain objection, that young men newly married might make: How can I shave my head or change my habit? saith thus, Vera conversio sufficit tibi, sine vestimentorum commutatione. The true conversion of the heart may suffice thee without changing of thy vesture. De temper. serm. 67. The Papists. error 27 2. THey enjoined them to fast bread & water certain days in the week, to lie hard, to abstain from marriage, or to do some great alms deeds to satisfy for their sin, Bellarm. ibid. to go a pilgrimage, and such like works of penance were prescribed them. The Protestants. TRue repentance consisteth not in such outward exercise of the body, but is a conversion rather of the heart. It was the manner of hypocrites, idolaters and superstitious men, to seek to appease their Gods with afflicting of their flesh, as the Gentiles did cut their hair, Deut. 14.1. Baal's Priests did launch their flesh, 1. King. 18.28. Argum. What is to be thought of such punishing of the carcase, Saint Paul showeth, Coloss. 2.23. He calleth it voluntary religion or superstition in not sparing the body: when men do not use such outward exercises of fasting and abstinence for the chastisement of the flesh, to subdue it to the spirit, but with an opinion of meriting thereby, preferring them before the faith and conversion of the heart, as the papists do. Augustine saith, Non sit satis, quòd doleat, sed ex fide doleat, & non semper doluisse, doleat: Let it not suffice to be sorrowful, but let his sorrow proceed of faith, De penitent. ca 13. and let it grieve him, that he is not always grieved for his sin. So then true repentance is especially an inward work of faith, rather than an exercise of the body, and it ought always to continue. Wherefore it consisteth not in such laborious works, which if a man should long endure, he should end his life sooner than repentance. The Papists. 3 THey measure their penance by number of years and days: They have error 28 their quadragenas, forty days penance: septenas, seven years penance, Ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 9 de penitent. Err. 83. And they lengthen or cut short the time of penance at their pleasure, to continue three, seven, or ten years, yea sometime more, Bellarmin. lib. 1. de penitent 22. The Protestants. THat true repentance is not to be measured by the time, but by the right sorrow and contrition of the offender, Saint Paul teacheth us, who writeth for the young man to be released, because of his great and sufficient heaviness for his fault, 2. Corinth. 2.7. Augustine also saith, Poenitentia vera, non annorum numero, De tempor. serm. 66. sed amaritudine animicensetur: poenitentia quamuis sit exigui temporis, etc. True repentance is not measured by number of years, but by the bitterness of the soul: though it be but for a short time, yet it is not despised before that judge which regardeth the heart. THE FIFTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, OF MATRIMONY. THe several questions belonging to this Controversy are these. First, whether Matrimony be a sacrament properly so called. 2 Of the causes of divorce, and whether it be lawful to marry after divorce. 3 Of the degrees in marriage: First, the manner of supputation or accounting of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may be by human law prohibited. 4 Of the impediments of marriage, of two sorts. First, of those that may hinder the contract of marriage only. Secondly, of such impediments, as may both dissolve the contract and the marriage also consummate. 5 The comparison of marriage and virginity, whether either be preferred before the other before God. Of these now in their order. 6 Of the times of marriage prohibited. 7 Of the ceremonies and rites of marriage. THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER Matrimony be a sacrament. The Papists. error 28 THat it is properly and rightly a sacrament instituted of God, and not devised of men, Concil. Trid. sess. 24. can. 1. Argum. 1. Ephes. 5.32. This is a great sacrament: Matrimony is here a sign of an holy thing, representing the conjunction of Christ, and his Church. Ergo, a sacrament. Answ. 1. The words are thus to be read rather, This is a great mystery. Or if we read sacrament, they have no great advantage, seeing they are not ignorant, that the original word, Mystery, which they translate sacrament, is attributed to other things than sacraments: as 1. Timoth. 3.16. Mystery of godliness: Apocal. 17.5. A mystery great Babylon. Neither do they themselves much urge this argument. 2. The Apostle saith not, that Matrimony is a mystery, but I speak of Christ and his Church, vers. 32.3. Matrimony we confess to be instituted of God, and to be a sign of a holy thing: yet no sacrament: for so was the Sabbath ordained of GOD, and signified the rest in Christ, Hebr. 4.8. yet was it no sacrament. Wherefore all significative and mystical signs are not sacraments. Argum. 2. Matrimony giveth grace of sanctification to the parties married. They shallbe saved in bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love, 1. Timoth. 2.15. These are the graces given by matrimony. Ergo, a sacrament. Answ. 1. We deny that any sacraments give or confer grace, they are instruments only of grace. 2. We also grant that by matrimony God giveth to the faithful this special grace to live in holiness & pureness, from the filthy pollution of the flesh: but the sacraments are seals of spiritual graces, and serve for the increase of faith: it is not sufficient to be a means of any common gift, but of the spiritual and justifying grace to make a sacrament. 3. Wherefore if by faith and love here, they understand only the fidelity and duty of wedlock, they are not those spiritual graces, whereof sacraments are seals: if we take them for the true faith and love, which are the common graces of the faithful, as the very meaning is, they are as well to be had out of wedlock, as in it. The Protestants. THat matrimony is no sacrament of the Gospel, speaking now properly, and understanding a sacrament, for the seal of the grace of God in the remission of our sins by Christ, it is thus proved: Argum. 1. Matrimony was instituted by GOD, before sin, in Paradise, therefore it can be no sacrament of the Gospel. Argum. 2. Our adversaries are contrary to themselves: for they call matrimony a profanation of Orders, Martin▪ sect. 15. cap. 11. And they say it is more tolerable for a Priest to keep many concubines then to marry, Pighius ex Tileman. Hesbus. loc. 21. Err. 2. Do these fellows mean in good sooth, that matrimony is a sacrament, which they make so vile, polluted and unclean a thing? 3 In every sacrament there ought to be an external sensible element, as the matter, and a sanctifiyng word, as the form: But in matrimony there is neither. Ergo, it is no sacrament. Bellarm. The form, are the words pronounced by the parties themselves, when they contract matrimony: I do take thee, etc. They also themselves are the matter: yea and the Ministers of the sacrament too: For the jesuite holdeth, that it is a sacrament in the very contract and giving of mutual consent, before it be solemnised in the Church, De matrim. cap. 6. Ans. 1. The sacrament is one thing, and the receivers another: therefore the married parties cannot be the sacramental matter, being the receivers. 2. It is not every word that sanctifieth, but the word of God, 1. Tim. 4.5. but these words, I take thee, are no part of the word: Ergo, they want also the form of a sacrament. 3. The ministers of Christ & preachers of the word are only the dispensers of the mysteries and sacraments of the Church, 1. Cor. 4.1. Wherefore the parties themselves could not be ministers of matrimony, if it were a sacrament. Augustine thus writeth, Ne quis istam magnitudinem sacramenti in singulis quibusque hominib. uxores habentib. intelligeret, ego autem dico, inquit, etc. Tract. in johan. 8. Lest any man should think, when the Apostle had said, This is a great sacrament, that this great Sacrament is to be understood of all married persons, the Apostle addeth, but I speak of Christ and his Church. But if so be matrimony were a sacrament, why is it not to be found in all married folk? THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE CAUSES of divorce in marriage, and whether it be lawful to marry after divorce. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THERE MAY BE more causes of divorce, than fornication only. The Papists. Divorce, as Bellarm. defineth it, is either from the duties of marriage, as from error 29 bed and board, as we say, which is properly called divortium, or it is a dissolving of the knot and bond of marriage, which is called repudium. First then, they affirm, that the very bond and knot may be dissolved in the marriage of Infidels, if one of them after marriage become a Christian: his reason is, because marriage contracted in infidelity is no sacrament, and therefore may be dissolved, Bellarmin. cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul saith, If the Infidel party will depart, let him departed, a brother or sister is not in subjection in such a case, 1. Corinth. 7.15. Answ. Saint Paul giveth not liberty to the one party at their pleasure utterly to renounce the other, as though they were no longer man and wife: for Saint Paul had said before, that if the Infidel party be content to dwell with the other, he or she is not to be put away. But his meaning is, that if one party wilfully departed, the other is no longer bound, nor in subjection for the performance of the mutual duties of marriage. The Papists. error 30 SEcondly, separation from bed and board may be admitted, they say, for divers causes, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 8. Bellarmine nameth three: Fornication, according to Christ's rule, Math. 5. Heresy, Tit. 3. An heretic must be avoided. Thirdly, when one is a continual offence to another & a provocation to sin: If thine eye offend thee, pull it out, Math. 5.29. Bellarmin. cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a just cause of separation and divorce, but not heresy: for Saint Paul would not have a woman to forsake an Infidel, 1. Corinth. 7.13. therefore not an heretic. We must avoid such, that is, take heed of their poisoned opinions, and shun their company also, where we are not otherwise bound: Neither is the eye to be cut off, where there is any hope: but who knoweth whether the offensive party may return to grace? And this place proveth as well a final ●utting off of marriage, as a separation or disjunction. The Protestants. FIrst, that there is no cause of utter dissolution of marriage by way of divorce, but only adultery and fornication: it is plain by our Saviour Christ's words, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. where neither infidelity nor any cause beside is excepted, but only fornication. Secondly, Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion, that the wife might be dismissed for infidelity: but he revoketh and retracteth that opinion, Lib. retract. 1. cap. 19 For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus: A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere: that it is not lawful for a woman at all to leave her husband, if he commit not fornication, De adulter. coniug. 1.7. And yet further, to make this matter more plain, we acknowledge no other cause of lawful divorce in marriage but that only, which is prescribed in the Gospel, namely, for adultery or fornication, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the marriage knot may be dissolved, though not for fornication: as when one of the parties doth wilfully renounce, leave and forsake the other upon no just cause, but either of lightness or for divers religion, as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian, a Papist a Protestant, an heretic a true professor, or upon any other unlawful or unjust cause: for the Apostle saith plainly, A brother or sister is not in subjection in such things, 1. Corinth. 7.15. that is, is freed from the yoke or bond of marriage. First, it is plain that the Apostle is so to be understood in this place: for the word, which he useth is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no longer a servant, or in subjection: which is to be taken in the same sense, as if he should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he or she is no longer bound or tied: which word the Apostle useth, vers. 39 And again the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse, where he saith the wife, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath no power of her own body, & the husband likewise: But now, saith he, the infidel party having wilfully separated himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the innocent party is no longer in subjection, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath now power over his own body: and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, free, exempt from the marriage knot or bond, in which sense the Apostle useth the word, verse 39 Secondly we must know what kind of desertion it is, that causeth a dissolution of marriage, and in what manner. First, it must be malitiosa desertio, a malicious departure without any just cause: But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affairs, as the Merchant beyond the seas: or is employed in some weighty business, as in warfare, in embassage, or such like: or is violently detained in prison or captivity, amongst the Turks or elsewhere: In these & the like cases the wife is bound to wait & expect the return of her husband, unless she be otherwise advertised of his death. Secondly, the innocent party must use all means to reconcile, reclaim, and bring home again the wilful and obstinate party so departing, if it be possible. Thirdly, if he continue in his obstinacy, and depart, having no purpose to return, the matter must be brought before the judge or Magistrate in such cases: who after public citation of the obstinate party, and certain knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appear being cited, and is not otherwise letted to come, may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent party free and at liberty to marry, according to Saint Paul's rule, A brother, or sister is not bound in such things. Thirdly, neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Saviour Christ, who alloweth no divorce but only for fornication: for that is a divers case from this, whereof Saint Paul treateth: And there is great difference between lawful divorce, and unlawful and wilful desertion: for there the innocent party first claimeth the privilege of separation: here the guilty party first separateth himself: there divorce is sued, and required: here the innocent party seeketh no divorce, but seeketh all means of reconciliation: So that properly the setting free the innocent party in this case, cannot be called a divorce. Christ therefore speaketh of lawful divorce, not of every dissolution of marriage: for then mention should have been made in that place of natural death and departure, which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of marriage. Thus have I showed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thi● point: Herein further as in all the rest referring myself to the determination of our Church, and the judgement of our learned brethren, Beza. 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 15. Amand. Polan. Hemingius. T●leman. Heshus. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER IT BE Lawful to marry after divorcement for adultery. The Papists. FOr adultery one may dismiss another, but neither party can marry again error 31 for any cause during life, Rhemist. Math. 19 sect. 4. no not the innocent party may marry again: for the marriage knot is not dissolved because of adultery, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2. The woman is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth: nothing but death dissolveth the bond between man and wife: therefore not lawful to marry again after divorce, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Saviour Christ, who maketh exception of fornication, Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul deny, that marriage may be dissolved, while they live, without breaking of wedlock: but that, although the knot hold during their life, yet by death it is dissolved. Again, Saint Paul having no occasion to entreat of divorce, speaketh of marriage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God, that if a woman join herself to another man, her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolved, she is a wedlock breaker. Arg. 2. 1. Corinth. 7.11. If she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled: Ergo, the parties separated for fornication may not marry again, Rhemist. Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations, which are caused by dissensions in marriage, and not of divorce for adultery: for he saith, If she depart: not If she be put away: neither was it so usual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemn divorce. Again, he saith, Let not the woman depart, as being in her choice, whether she would departed or not: but in the case of fornication, she was to departed, or rather be put away, whether she would or not. The Protestants. FOr no other cause in the world, but only for fornication may there be either a final separation, or clean dissolution of marriage, by way of divorce: But for that cause our Saviour hath granted liberty, both to dissolve matrimony, and to marry again. Argum. Math. 5.32. Whosoever putteth away his wife (except it be for fornication) committeth adultery: Ergo, for fornication it is lawful for a man to dismiss his wife. Likewise Math. 19.9. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredom, and marry another, committeth adultery: Ergo, for adultery it is lawful for the man both to put away and renounce his wife, and the wife likewise her husband (for there is the like reason for both) and for them to marry again. This liberty granted by our Saviour Christ, by no human law can be restrained, or cut off. Argum. 2. Saint Paul saith, Let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband, for avoiding of fornication, and it is better to marry, then to burn. Wherefore it is lawful, the first marriage according to the word of God being broken, both for men and women to use the remedy against incontinency, and to be married again: for he speaketh generally of all. Augustine saith, that he which putteth away his wife for adultery and marrieth another, Non est aequandus ei, is not in the same case with with him, which for any other cause putteth away and marrieth again. But if it be as lawful for other causes to be divorced, as for heresy & infidelity, De fide & ●per. cap. 19 as the jesuite telleth us, there should be no difference made between the second marriage of the one and the other. Augustine in the same place, though he be elsewhere resolute against marriage after divorce, yet granteth that it is not plain out of scripture, whether he be an adulterer, that marrieth again after divorce for adultery: Sed quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallitur, but as I think, we are every one of us herein deceived. I end this point, better allowing Pollentius judgement for this matter, than Augustine's, between whom there is much discoursed of both sides: Si mulier à viro non fornicante discesserit, non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum▪ si autem à fornicante, non ei expedire propter opprobrium: If a woman depart from her husband being no adulterer, it is not lawful to marry another because of the commandment: but if he be an adulterer, it is lawful to marry, but not expedient always, because of the shame and reproach, Ad Pollent. lib. 1. cap. 6. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE degrees in marriage prohibited. FIrst of the supputation of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may by human law be prohibited beside those. THE FIRST PART, OF THE SVPPVtation and account of degrees. THe degrees are either of consanguinity, which is of divers persons coming of the same stock and blood: or of affinity, which ariseth of marriage, as when the kinsmen of either party that is married, are by marriage allied to the other, though not of his blood, as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by marriage, as also by blood unto Isaac, though not so nearly. In both these kinds of kindred there is a right line both upward and ascending: as in consanguinity, the Father or Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, and so forth: in affinity, the Father in law, and mother in law, the stepfather, or stepmother: as also descending, as the son, the sons son, the son in law, or daughter in law, and their sons and daughters. There is also a collateral line in consanguinity, as brother and sister, brother and sister's children, uncle or aunt: in affinity, the brother's wife, sister's husband, the uncles wife, or aunts husband. Now our adversaries set down these rules to know the degrees by. The Papists. error 32 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons, Abraham. Isaac. 1. jacob. 2. except the first, from the which we begin the account: as in this example jacob is in the second degree from Abraham. Answer. We see no reason, why the first should be left out: for look how many generations, so many degrees: But every person is a generation: And this is the manner of account in scripture: as Math. 1. there are 14. generations reckoned from Abraham, whereof Abraham maketh one, judg. 14. Enoch the seventh from Adam, Adam being the first himself in that number: Thus the scripture numbereth inclusive, not exclusive, inclusively comprehending also the number, from whom the account beginneth: And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree, and jacob, not in the second but the third from him. The Papists. error 33 2 IN the collateral line, if the parties be equally distant from the root or stock of the generation, look how many degrees distant they are from the stock, so is the distance between themselves: Bathuel. Rebecca. jacob. Laban. Rachel. jacob and Rachel are in the second degree, because each of them is removed from Bathuel, in the second degree, Bellarm. cap. 26. The Protestants. Answ. NEither do we allow this rule: but rather follow the account of the civil law, which in the collateral line maketh so many degrees as persons, excepting the stock, which is not to be counted in collateral degrees, because we begin not to number there. Wherefore according to the rule afore said, how many generations, so many degrees. According then to the account of the civil law, which we here follow, jacob and Rachel are not in the second, but the fourth degree each from other: Rachel, 1. Laban, 2. Rebecca, 3. jacob, 4. For in collateral degrees, we count not the distance from the root or stock, but the mutual distance from themselves. And by this reason, if Cousin germans be but in the second degree, there should be no degree beyond the second forbidden, Leuit. 18. for there is no degree forbidden beyond this: neither is this by name and directly forbidden. The Papists. 3. THeir third rule is this: In collateral degrees unequal, There. Abraham. Aram. Sara. error 34 that is, when both are not alike distant from the stock, they shall differ in that degree, in the which the further of them is removed from the stock: as in this example, Sara is distant two degrees from the stock, and as many from Abraham, Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. NEither is this rule perfect: for by this reason, he that is indeed a degree further off, shall be in the same degree: for if the uncle and the nephew be removed but the second degree, and Cousin germans are but distant in the second degree, as they say, the uncles son shall be in the same degree with his cousin, as his father is, which is not to be admitted. Wherefore in collaterals we prefer the Civil account of degrees: that is, so many persons, the stock of the kindred excepted, so many degrees. These than are the rules of marriage. 1. In the right line ascending and descending, all degrees are forbidden. 2. In collateral consanguinity the prohibition reacheth to the third degree: as it is not lawful to marry the uncle, or the Aunt, who are in the third degree from their nephew. 3. In collateral affinity the prohibition is extended to the fourth degree: for affinity is always a degree beyond that consanguinity, by the which it cometh in: as it is unlawful to marry the uncles wife, Leuit. 18.14. which is in the fourth degree from her nephew, being one degree beyond her husband, who is the uncle in the third degree. And this is to be observed, that there is no affinity in the first or second degree, but the nearest is in the third: as the wives or husband's father, brother, or daughter, which are all in the third degree: the husband is in the first, the wife the second, and they in the third. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER ANY OF THE degrees prohibited in the law may be dispensed withal. The Papists. THey say not that the Pope may dispense with all, but with some of them, Concil. Trid. sess. 24. can. 3. As they took upon them to dispense with King error 35 Henry the 8. marriage with his brother's wife: their reason is, because some of those prohibitions were only judicial and positive constitutions, not grounded upon the law of nature. Argum. 1. If it be the law of nature not to marry within those degrees, it should have been in force before the law was made: but so was it not: for Abraham married his brother's daughter, and jacob two sisters, Bellarm. cap. 27. Ans. 1. As Augustine saith of the marriage and copulation of Adam's children, brothers and sisters together: Factum est compellente necessitate, It was for necessity sake, because there were then no more women: so also may it be in some sort true of those patriarchs, that having a necessity to marry amongst their own kindred, and not with the Gentiles, there was no choice to be had of women of their own kindred further off in degree. 2. Although this example of theirs both in marrying many wives and so near of kin, cannot be altogether excused or justified in them: yet because the law of nature was not yet so clearly known, as afterward by the giving of the law, which is nothing else but an exposition of the law of nature; the offence was not so great in them, but might better be tolerated: because as Augustine saith, it was neither Contra morem illorum temporum, nec contra praeceptum▪ Neither against the custom of those times, nor against any flat precept. And to conclude, although those holy men had their imperfections, yet we must not judge them in these things according to the evil and corrupt disposition of men in these days, which might use this great liberty in marriage, better than many use lawful marriage now: as Augustine saith, Castiùs habebant plures, quàm nunc multi unam: They used many wives more chastely, than many now live with one, De bon. coniug. cap. 10. The Protestants. WE affirm that it is utterly unlawful for any Christian to marry within the degrees prohibited: neither can any human power dispense with such marriages: but the equity of that law being grounded upon nature, is in force for ever. Wherefore the Pope of Rome showeth himself plainly to be Antichrist in dispensing against the law of God. Argum. 1. Levit. 18.24. The reason of that law is given concerning the forbidden degrees: They should not defile themselves in any one of those things, because the Gentiles defiled themselves thereby, and were cast out before them for it. Wherefore it is a natural and perpetual law, otherwise the Gentiles had not been bound unto it. Argum. 2. Mark. 6.18. john saith to Herode, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife: Ergo, the law was not abrogate, being in force in our Saviour Christ's time. Neither are they to allege, that Herodes brother was yet living, or that he had a child by Herodias, and therefore it was not lawful for him to marry her: for all this being granted, which cannot be proved, yet it is plain out of the text, that john reproveth him in no other name, but because he married his brother's wife. Augustine is against them, who speaking of the marriage of Consobrines or Cousin germans, which had been sometime in use, Quia id nec divina prohibuit, De civitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16. & nondum prohibuerat lex humana: It was as yet thought lawful, because neither the divine law forbade it, neither was it yet prohibited by man's law. If that then be thought lawful, which Gods law manifestly forbiddeth not, that sure is unlawful which it plainly forbiddeth. Wherefore to marry within any of the degrees directly forbidden, Leuit. 18. is utterly unlawful. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER ANY OTHER DEgrees may be by human law prohibited, beside those directly forbidden in the law. The Papists. 1. THey affirm, that by the law of Moses, those degrees only are unlawful to marry in, which are directly and by name set down: & therefore it is error 36 not unlawful, by Moses law, for the uncle or Aunt's husband to marry his niece, because it is not by name prohibited: as Abraham married his brother aram's daughter: for Sara was his niece. The marriage also of Cousin germans was lawful by Moses law, and practised, Numb. 36. The daughters of Zelophehad married their uncles sons. Therefore by Moses law no degrees are forbidden, which are not directly named, Bellarm. cap. 27. The Protestants. 1. COncerning abraham's marriage what is to be thought, we have showed before: but it is a plain case, that the uncle is no more to marry his niece, than the nephew his Aunt: and this being by name prohibited, Leuit. 18, 14.20.2. the other also is necessarily included: for the same rules for degrees of kindred do proportionably hold both in men and women: wherefore such marriage is unlawful, neither to be contracted, and if it be, to be dissolved. 2. Concerning the marriage of brothers and sisters children, there is a greater question. First, it cannot be proved that Zelophehads' five daughters married their uncles sons, that is, their Cousin germans: for the Hebrews call the nephews, sons: as jethros daughters are called the daughters of Raguel their grandfather, Exod. 2.17. So it is very like that their husbands were their uncles sons sons, as in the 12. verse it may be gathered, where the text saith, They were married into the families of the sons of Manasses: therefore not into one family. But as touching the question in hand, the marriage of Cousin germans seemeth also by some analogy to be forbidden by Moses law: for if the degrees of affinity be limited to the fourth degree: as it is not lawful for a man to marry his wives daughters daughter, Leviticus 18.17. why should not the line of consanguinity hold to the fourth degree likewise? And so neither the son to marry his father's brother's daughter, or the daughter the son: for here are also four degrees: the son, one: the father two, the father's brother three, the brother's son four. Yet this we grant, that this analogy or proportion is not so strong, nor doth conclude so necessarily as the other. Wherefore we thus determine of this matter, that it is well that the marriages of Cousin germans are restrained by human law, and so they ought to be: which kind of marriages may lawfully be hindered, and the contract loosed: but the marriage being consummate and finished, it is not for this cause to be dissolved. De civitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16. Augustine also writeth very well of this matter, Quis dubitet, honestiùs hoc tempore consobrinarum prohibita esse coniugia, etiamsi id divina lex non prohibeat: cuius enim debet causa propinquitatis verecundum honorem, ab ea contineat quamuis generatricem libidinem? Who doubteth, but that the marriage of Cousin germans is honestly forbidden, though the divine law do not prohibit it? for to whom a man oweth a shamefast reverence for kindred sake, he ought to refrain his lust. The Papists. error 37 2. IT is lawful for the Church to restrain other degrees of affinity and consanguinity, besides those prescribed by Moses, and that the decrees of the Church in such cases do bind in conscience, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 3. As to prohibit marriage unto the seventh degree in natural kindred. Also their Canons do make a spiritual kindred, that cometh in by Baptism & Confirmation: and suffer not the godfather to marry the godchild, or the godfather the godmother. Likewise they have found out an affinity that cometh in by espousals only of Matrimony, which bindeth (say they) in the first degree by the Canon law, which is the first and second by the Civil law: as that it is not lawful for the brother to marry her which was espoused to his brother. Also another kindred and affinity, by fornication & unlawful fleshly knowledge, which bindeth in the 2. degree Canonical, which is the 3. and 4. Civil: as it is not lawful for the son to marry his father's bastard, Bellarm. cap. 24. cap. 30. The Protestants. 1. TO forbid more degrees in marriage, then are either directly or by necessary consequence prohibited in the law, is a mere Antichristian yoke laid upon the people of God: for the Lord (the author of that law) best did know, both what persons were fit for marriage, and how far the line of marriage was to extend. 2. The invention of spiritual kindred is but a popish trick, to get the more money for their dispensations: for by this reason no Christians ought to marry together, because they are all of one spiritual kindred in Christ. 3. The new affinity that cometh by espousals, is also but an human invention: for the law speaketh only of the kindred of the flesh, which ariseth of carnal knowledge and copulation, not an intent or purpose only of marriage, Leuit. 18.6. 4. The last we admit, for the son of the father begotten out of marriage, is of his fleshly kindred, though not lawfully: and therefore in marriage matters there is respect also to be had even of this kindred of the flesh: as Reuben is cursed of his father because he lay with his concubine, Genes. 49.4. which notwithstanding was not his father's wife. THE FOURTH QUESTION, OF OTHER impediments of marriage. THere are some impediments which may hinder and dissolve the contract of marriage, before it be consummate, but not after: some, which both may error 38 hinder the contract, and dissolve the matrimony even after carnal knowledge. The Papists. 1. BEllarmine reckoneth up divers impediments of both kinds, which may disannul the contract of marriage, and dissolve the matrimony itself: but he maketh no mention of the consent of the parents. And indeed it is their opinion, that it is not a necessary thing to be respected in marriage: neither that children are bound to require the consent of their parents, Cap. 19 The Protestants. FIrst, we do not say, that the want of the parents consent may dissolve marriage consummate after mutual conjunction: but that it may break off the contract and espousals. Secondly, neither have the parent's power to bestow their children in marriage without their consent, Genes. 24.57. Thirdly, neither must the parents exercise a tyrannical power over their children in forbidding them marriage, but must always have respect unto their need. And thus doing their consent is necessary, and without it the contract hath no validity, 1. Corin. 7.37.38. The parent hath power to give in marriage or not to give. There are also other causes which may dissolve contracts and espousals made: as if the honest and lawful condition propounded in the contract be not kept: or if there be an error in the person, he heareth afterward of her dishonesty, whom he took for an honest woman: both these may make void the contract, error 39 but not the marriage, if they be once joined together. The Papists. 2. THey set down many impediments, which may make a nullity of marriage itself, after it be consummate: some of them we acknowledge, as afterward it shall appear: but these following we do renounce. First, the vow of chastity and entering into Orders do lose the bond of marriage. Secondly, if one marry with an Infidel, the marriage is not only unlawful, but actually void, Bellarm. cap. 23. Thirdly, he that marrieth her with whom he committed adultery before, is lose, even after marriage, and the matrimony void, Bellarm. cap. 22. The Protestants. 1. COncerning the invalidity of vows to disannul marriage, we have declared the truth before, Controu. 6. de Monachis. For marriage lawfully contracted and consummate, is only made void in the case of adultery, as we have before proved. 2. Neither doth the infidelity of the one party make a nullity of marriage: for S. Paul saith, that the woman in that case is not to forsake her husband, 1. Corinth. 7.13. Of this matter see more, quaest. 2. part. 2. of this controversy. 3. Neither is the fault committed before the marriage, sufficient to disable the marriage once done: for them question might have been made of the strength of David's marriage with Bathsheba. And Augustine doubteth not thus to conclude, De bono coniug. cap. 15. Posse sanè fieri nuptias ex male coniunctis, honesto postea placito consequent: That marriage may very well stand between those, that once had unlawful carnal copulation, but afterward an honest purpose of marriage followed. But there are certain cases, wherein matrimony unlawfully contracted, yea consummate, may be dissolved: as first, if the consent of either party be wanting, as when by tyrannical coaction and compulsion they come together, and the consent is still withholden. Secondly, if the consent of both be wanting, as in the marriage of children, that are not able to give consent. Thirdly, if there be an error of the person, as if one be thrust upon a man in stead of another, as Lea was upon jacob: or an error in the condition of the party, as if he or she be an Hermaphrodite, an Eunuch, or such like. Fourthly, if they marry within the degrees forbidden by Moses law. In all these cases, Matrimony thus unlawfully begun and ratified, may be dissolved. But lawful matrimony cannot be abrogate but either by natural death, or lawful divorce for fornication. In the case of desertion also and long absence of either party, after the expecting of his return some term of years, with probable intelligence of the party's death, or if he be wilfully absent, of his lewd and dishonest life, the innocent party, by the wise and deliberate sentence of the Magistrate, may be pronounced free. THE FIFT QUESTION, OF THE COMPARISON between Virginity and Marriage. The Papists. error 40 Virginity is preferred before marriage, not only for that it is a more quiet state of life, and freer from troubles in this world, but that it is more convenient for the service of God, and that it hath a grateful purity and sanctity, both of body and soul, which marriage hath not, Rhemist. Argum. 1. Corinth. 7.32. The unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please God: Ergo, virginity is a fit state of life to serve & please God in, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. FIrst we grant, according to the Apostles saying in this place, that virginity is also a fit state of life for the service of God, yet not simply, but for those only that have the gift of continency: for they which cannot abstain, may and do serve God with a more quiet mind being married, than many popish virgins which burn in the lust of concupiscence. Secondly, yet it followeth not, that virginity is a more holy and clean thing in itself, and more meritorious before God, than marriage is: for this were to make marriage unholy & unclean: whereas it is not the act of marriage, but the abusing thereof, that bringeth uncleanness with it: before God in themselves, neither is more holy than other. Argum. It is faith which maketh us accepted of God, not the merit of any work: and therefore of all faithful believers it is said, Apocal. 14.4. These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. And he understandeth all that are redeemed by Christ, from amongst men, and are the first fruits of the Lamb, vers. 4. And not only those, which properly in common use of speech we call virgins. True godliness therefore & a sincere faith, whereby we are divorced from the world, and joined to God, is the true virginity. Augustine, Sicut non est impar meritum patientiae in Petro, qui passus est, De bono conjugal. cap. 21. & in johann, qui passus non est: sic non est impar meritum continentiae in johann, qui nullas est expertus nuptias, & in Abraham, qui filios generavit: As there was no greater merit of patience in Peter that suffered, then in john, who suffered not: so there was no greater merit of continency in john that was never married, then in Abraham that begat children. See then, by his judgement, there is the same merit of married and unmarried persons. THE sixth QUESTION, OF THE TIMES OF marriage prohibited. The Papists. THere are certain seasons in the year, wherein for the holiness of the festival times, they hold it unlawful to have marriage solemnised: as from the Aduent error 41 to the epiphany: from Septuagesima Sunday (as it is called) to the octaves of Easter: from 3. days afore the Ascension, to the octaves of Pentecost, Ex Tilem. Heshus. loc. 20. err. 14. Ruard Tapper. artic. 20. pag. 526. But the Council of Trent hath somewhat moderated this time, and cut it shorter, thinking it unreasonable that marriage should be prohibited the third part of the year (for so much the time interdicted ariseth to, if account be taken of the weeks.) The time of Pentecost therefore they have dispensed with: and the time prohibited at Easter they would have begun not from Septuagesima, but from Ash-wednesday, Sess. 24. cap. 10. Upon these times they hold it unlawful publicly to have marriage solemnised, both for the holiness of so great feasts, and because of receiving the Sacraments, Bellarm. de matrim. cap. 31. Argum. God commanded the people to abstain from their wives, when he was to appear unto them in Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.15. And Sam. 21.4. Before the high priest would deliver the showbread to David and his company, he asked if the young men had kept themselves from women: Ergo, marriage is not lawful at all times, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. First, these places alleged do rather prove, that men in those interdicted times ought not at all to come at their wives, than that the solemnisation of marriage should be restrained: but I think they would be ashamed to forbid men their wives company so long together, as five or six weeks at the Nativity, and eight or nine weeks at Easter: why then should not the one be as lawful as the other? Secondly, the abstinence from their wives was commanded then, as a legal and ceremonial kind of sanctification, as was also the washing of their clothes, Exod. 19.10. And the company of women was at some times counted as a legal pollution, not as a sinful or unclean act of itself: as the women after childbirth were commanded to purify themselves, Levit. 12. from a legal pollution only, not from any sinful or unclean act: for than it had been a manifest injury to that holy birth, that Mary purified herself according to the law, Luk. 2.22. Wherefore seeing it was a legal kind of sanctification, it is not to be intruded & imposed upon Christians now. Thirdly, neither can they prove that this kind of abstinence is necessary always before the receiving of the Sacrament, though sometimes we deny not but it is convenient: for it was not always required, no not of the priests in the law, when they were to offer incense or sacrifice. For whereas the high priest, which was always but one, was bound morning and evening to offer incense unto the Lord, Exod. 30.8. He could not observe this rule, unless he had been enjoined perpetual abstinence, which we see by the law was not imposed upon them. This doubt somewhat troubled Augustine: Quaest sup. Leuitic. 15. for first he saith, That it must needs follow, seeing the high priest was married, and did sometime go in unto his wife, that the offering of incense should some days be intermitted: but in his retractations he misliketh his former solution, and thus determineth, That the high priest first offered the morning incense, and afterward went in to his wife, and so was unclean, Retract. lib. 2. cap. 85. usque ad vesperam, but until the evening, not after the eventide, and then he offered the evening incense. To take this answer for this time, though it be insufficient: for the Hebrew word, which is translated the even, or eventide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth the twilight, when the Sun is set, when light and darkness are mixed together: but the incense was renewed before the Sun set: yet I say, admitting Augustine's solution, the high priest did not abstain one whole day before he offered: much less many days, much less many weeks, much less some months: as the popish Church prescribeth by interdicting so many days. The Protestants. THat not only the public solemnity of marriage at some times may have intermission, but all matrimonial acts ought to cease, as when men either privately do give themselves to fasting and prayer, 1. Corin. 7.5. or when public or general fasts are by the spiritual governors thought meet, & by the Christian Magistrate proclaimed: we do not deny, but in our judgement allow it, and by our practice approve it: but that matrimony at such set times as an unholy and unclean thing is to be forbidden and restrained, we take it to be popish superstition, and an Antichristian yoke. Argum. 1. It disgraceth the holy institution of marriage, which the Apostle calleth honourable, Heb. 13.4. and S. Paul counteth the fruits of marriage, which are the children of the faithful, holy, 1. Corin. 7.14. How is it then, that there can be any time so holy, the which holy matrimony is not beseeming? Again, in thus doing they make difference of days, esteeming some in themselves more holy than others, contrary to the Apostles rule, Galath. 4.10. Colossians 2.16. Argu. 2. The Tridentine Chapter maketh but two holy times in the year, the Nativity and Ester: during which times, they would not have matrimony solemnised: and I pray you, why is Pentecost left out, is it not as festival a time as the other? Can there be a more holy place, than Paradise? or a more holy time, then while man was in his innocency? yet even then and there Matrimony was instituted. Lastly, Is not the Sabbath or Lords day an holy festival time? and as holy as any is? what if I said more holy, for this only immediately was instituted of God: but marriage may notwithstanding be fitly solemnised upon that day, the abuses and disorders, which commonly fall out in such assemblies, being cut off: for Augustine is of opinion, that the marriage in Cana of Galilee, was die Dominico, upon the Lord's day: Serm. de temp. 159. And it is most fit that matrimony should be solemnised in the face of the congregation, which is usually assembled upon that day: Ergo, it may as fitly and conveniently at any time be kept and solemnised, excepting the respects aforesaid. THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE ceremonies and rites of Matrimony. The Papists. THe jesuite reckoneth up seven. First, they which are to be joined in matrimony, error 42 are blessed of the Priest. Secondly, oblation is made for them in the sacrifice of the Mass. Thirdly, they are covered with a vail. Fourthly, they are coupled together vitta purpurea & candida, with a scarf or ribbon, partly white, partly purple. Fiftly, the bride giveth to the bridegroom a ring, first hallowed and blessed of the Priest. Sixtly, he commendeth them to God in his prayers. Seventhly, he exhorteth and admonisheth them of their mutual duty, Bellarm. cap. 33. de Matrimon. The Protestants. SOme of those rites we altogether allow and use them ourselves, as the 6. and 7. for both prayers are made unto God for them, and they are by the Minister put in mind of their duty: and all is done with us in the vulgar tongue, much more to the edifying of the people, and comfort of the parties themselves: whereas their idolatrous Priest chattereth all in an unknown tongue: A goodly exhortation sure, when the parties exhorted understand not one word thereof. Some other of these rites we utterly reject, as the 2.3.4. for oblation or sacrifice, in their meaning, we acknowledge none: for the married parties to receive the Communion, if there be a sufficient number, we neither hold it necessary as being of the essence of marriage, nor yet think it unmeet. But as for that coloured and painted attire of blue and white, we take it fit for a May-game, then to be showed in a solemn assembly of Christians. The rest we in part allow, as the ring, so it be used only as a civil ornament, and token of mutual love: but that popish blessing either of the ring, or of the married couple with the fingers across, and muttering of some few enchanting words, as though by the very act of popish blessing there were a secret virtue and quality of holiness infused into the things so blessed or enchanted; we condemn it as a superstitious toy. So we conclude, all such rites in matrimony, as have a comely and profitable use, tending to edifying, we refuse not: the rest we reject, and send them back to Rome, from whence they came. THE SIXTEENTH CONTROVERSY, OF CONFIRMATION, ORDERS, EXTREME UNCTION. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF Confirmation. THe parts of this question are these. First, whether it be a Sacrament. Secondly, of the parts thereof. Thirdly, of the effect of this ceremony. Fourthly, of the rites, and whole order thereof. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER it be a Sacrament. The Papists. THat Confirmation is properly and truly a Sacrament, it was decreed in the Tridentine Council, sess. 7. can. 1. and it is their general opinion. error 43 Argum. Act. 8.17. They did lay their hands upon them, and they received the holy Ghost: This imposition of hands, together with the prayers here specified, was no doubt, the Sacrament of confirmation: for here is an outward sign, and a spiritual grace: Ergo, a Sacrament, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. de Confirmat. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ans. 1. These were miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost, as the gifts of tongues, of prophesying, healing, which were bestowed upon the Disciples, whereof the imposition of hands was a sign at that time: but it is impossible to ground an ordinary and perpetual sacrament, upon an extraordinary example: and that they were such visible graces of the spirit, it appeareth, because Simon Magu● saw that the holy Ghost was given them by laying on of hands. Secondly, the holy Ghost was obtained by their prayers, ver. 15. and not by the very laying on of hands. Thirdly, to make a Sacrament, it is not enough to have a visible sign, and to show some spiritual grace therewith to be bestowed: for then the spittle and clay that Christ used, the napkins also and partlets, which were carried to the sick from the Apostles, and they were healed presently: all these should be sacraments; for here are outward signs, and some effect followed: yet because there was no institution of a sacrament by Christ, nor any commandment to use them, neither these, nor the imposition of hands can be a Sacrament. The Protestants. WE grant a ceremony of imposition of hands used in the Apostles time, and after, so long as the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost continued in the Church: there is also another kind of imposition of hands, such as the Apostle speaketh of, Heb. 6.2. which may have perpetual use in the Church, which is nothing else but a kind of prayer to be strengthened by the holy Ghost, and for the increase of grace. But neither this nor the other do we hold to be a sacrament. Argum. 1. Every sacrament must have his appointment from Christ, consisting both of an outward element, and the word of institution: but the popish sacrament of confirmation hath none of these: the element they use, is oil, the word of consecration, I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and anoint thee with the Chrism of health, in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost: but none of these have their institution by Christ or his Apostles any where in the new testament: Ergo, it is no sacrament. De Baptis. lib. 3.16. Augustine saith, Manus impositio, quid aliud est, quàm oratio super hominem? The imposition of the hands, what else is it but prayer over a man? He saith not it is a Sacrament. THE SECOND PART, OF THE MATter and form of Confirmation. The Papists. THe matter of this popish Sacrament, they say, is oil mixed and tempered error 44 with balm, Rhemist. Act. 8. sect. 6. First, hallowed and consecrated by the Minister thereof, and striked in manner of a cross upon the forehead of him that is to be confirmed, Bellarm. cap. 8. Argum. 2. Corinth. 1.21. It is God which establisheth us, or confirmeth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us. Here the Apostle speaketh of confirmation, and of the material part thereof, which is holy unction, or anointing, Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst the Apostle saith not, Which hath confirmed, but, Which doth confirm: which if it were meant of that external ceremony of confirmation, see what injury you offer to the Apostle, that being a confirmer of others, he had need now to be catechised and confirmed himself. Again, he speaketh not of confirmation wrought by the ministery of men: but God (saith he) confirmeth us, that is, establisheth us by his spirit. 2. It is to too gross to understand by this anointing, your greasy besmearing men's faces with your Chrism, seeing the Apostle expoundeth himself in the next verse, He hath sealed us, and given the earnest of his spirit in our hearts, ver. 22. Of this holy anointing of our hearts by the spirit, S. john also maketh mention, saying, This Anointing teacheth you all things, 1. epist. 2.27. But doth the anointing of the face I pray you, give men instruction? Let us hear Augustine's exposition, Christus sit in cord, unctio ipsius sit in cord: Tractat. in epist. joh. 4. inspiratio eius docet, unctio eius docet: Let Christ be in your hearts, let his anointing be in your hearts: his inspiration is his anointing: you may be ashamed therefore, so grossly to abuse Scripture. 3. As for your oil therefore mixed with balm: First, the true balm you know is not to be had, and therefore you abuse the people. Secondly, make the best of it you can, it is but a jewish ceremony. Thirdly, your benediction of it, is but a kind of magical enchantment, seeing you have no word of God to consecrate creatures in that sort: for all things are sanctified by the word of God and prayer: Ergo, without the warrant of God, there is no such sanctifying of creatures. The Papists. 2. THe form of Confirmation is in the words which are pronounced, I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of error 45 salvation or health, in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost, Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants. 1. THey must show the institution of Christ, out of the word, for the form of every sacrament: which they can not do for this, unless they run to their beggarly traditions, which they blasphemously call the word of God unwritten. 2. Where have they learned, that men are confirmed and established with the external anointing of oil? so said some amongst the Colossians, Touch not, taste not, handle not: to whom the Apostle answereth, Which things perish with the using, and are after the commandments of men, Coloss. 2.21.22. So is this anointing with oil, a mere invention of men, and hath no longer virtue or force, then in the natural use thereof. THE THIRD PART, OF THE Efficacy and virtue of confirmation. The Papists. THe holy Ghost is given in confirmation, for force, strength, and corroboration, against all our spiritual enemies, and to stand constantly in the confession error 46 of our faith, even to death, with great increase of grace, Rhemist. Act. 8. sect. 7. And in this respect it giveth more abundant grace, in strengthening of us against the devil, than Baptism doth, Bellarm. cap. 11. The Protestants. FIrst, they do offer great injury to the spirit of God, tying him as it were, to their beggarly elements, which have power, as they say, to confer grace: The Scripture saith, The spirit bloweth where it listeth, joh. 3. The spirit of God is free, and is given without Sacraments, as well as with them: but this tradition of yours is no Sacrament: if it were, yet could it not confer grace, as we have proved before. Secondly, they do greatly deface the Sacrament of Baptism, making it imperfect without confirmation, saying, that he which is baptised, shall never be a perfect Christian, Tilem. Heshus. loc. 22 error. 22. unless he be confirmed with Chrism, Gerson. And that it is to be reverenced with greater reverence than Baptism: See Fulk Act. 8. sect. 7. Yea they deprive Baptism of the proper effect and use thereof, which is a sign unto us of the assistance of God's spirit, to fight manfully against the Devil: for by baptism we are buried into the death of Christ, Rom. 6.3. But Christ by his death triumphed over the Devil, Coloss. 2.15. Ergo, Baptism is a sign of our victory against the Devil: yet they rob Baptism of this honour, and give it to Confirmation. And thus they prefer their own inventions before the ordinance of God; no Sacrament before a Sacrament. Augustine showeth, what the Sacrament of Unction is, Vnctionis sacramentum est virtus ipsa invisibilis; Tract. in epist johan. 4. unctio invisibilis, spiritus sanctus: The sacrament of unction, is the invisible virtue: the invisible anointing, the holy spirit: What is become now of your sacrament of unction? THE FOURTH PART, OF THE RITES and ceremonies of Confirmation. The Papists. THe ceremonies which they commonly use in Confirmation, are these. First, error 47 the Bishop must breath upon the pot or cruse of Chrism. Seoncdly, he saluteth it in these words, ave sanctum Chrisma: Hail holy Chrism. Thirdly, he giveth a kiss. Fourthly, he striketh him that is confirmed with his hand, to teach him patience. Fiftly, his forehead is bound about, lest the Chrism should run down, which teacheth him not to lose the grace of God. Sixtly, seven days together he must neither wash his head nor face. And these with such like ridiculous toys, are practised amongst them, Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. de confirmat. The Protestants. 1. SOme of these ceremonies we condemn as ridiculous: as the breathing upon the oil, the striking of the party confirmed, which light gestures become not the gravity of the Ministers of the Gospel: all things should be done in the Church in decent and comely order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, one of them is merely Idolatrous, to salute the oil, as the Angel saluted Mary, to say ave, All hail unto it, making an Idol of it, being a thing without sense or life. Thirdly, all of them are superstitious, having mystical and typical significations and shadows, 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 oppress religion with the burden of ceremonies, which God hath left free in few sacraments. Again, who seethe not how thus by their own traditions they do evacuate 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 works, faith toward God, of the resurrection and eternal judgement, Hebre. 6.2.3. they have brought in nothing else, but oiling, greasing, anointing of them, breathing upon them, crossing, and such like: and whereas S. Paul giveth Parents a charge to bring up 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 have done enough. THE SECOND QUESTION, of Orders. THe several parts of this question, are these: First, whether it be a Sacrament▪ Secondly, of the efficacy and virtue thereof. Thirdly, of the ceremonies. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE receiving of orders be a Sacrament. The Papists. THat holy Orders are a sacrament rightly and properly so called, it was decreed in the Tridentine Council sess. 23. canon. 3. And that not only the error 48 three higher degrees of Priesthood, Deaconship, subdeaconship, but the four inferior orders, of Exorcistae, Acoluthi, Lectores, Ostiarij, do belong unto 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 given thee through prophesy, with the laying on of hands. Holy orders give grace by an external ceremony and work: Ergo, it is a Sacrament, Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ans. 1. It cannot be proved out of this place, that imposition of hands giveth grace: for this was an extraordinary gift which S. Paul speaketh of, and doth not always follow imposition of hands. Secondly, this gift was not given by the very ceremony of imposition of hands, but through prophesy and revelation of the holy Ghost: for it was revealed unto the Church by the spirit of prophecy, that Timothy was a chosen vessel of God: therefore S. Paul saith, That worthy thing which is committed unto thee, keep through the holy Ghost, 2. Tim. 1.14. The holy ghost was both the conferrer of that grace, and the preserver of it. Imposition then of hands was but an outward sign of the presence of God's spirit upon those that were lawfully ordained: for all upon whom hands were laid, received not the holy ghost, but such only as were appointed of God: And therefore the Apostle chargeth Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man, 1. Timoth. 5.22. which caveat was not needful, if upon whomsoever he had laid his hands, they should immediately receive the holy Ghost. The Protestants. YOur seven popish orders we do not at all receive into the church, much less can we abide, that they should be sacraments: The lawful ordaining of Pastors, teachers, and Deacons, we do acknowledge, but no sacrificing Priesthood, nor no ministering Deaconship at the Altar: such orders as we have notwithstanding we do not take to be Sacraments, much less yours, that are utterly to be abolished. Argum. 1. Sacraments must have their institution from Christ: so have not your orders: for Christ instituted only Apostles and Disciples: Presbyters, and Deacons were founded by the Apostles: who notwithstanding had no commission to constitute new Sacraments. As for the other five orders, of Subdeacons', Readers, Acoluthi, Exorcists, door keepers, they are neither read in Scripture, nor ordained of the Apostles, nor heard of for many years after. Secondly, your Sacrament hath neither outward element, nor word of institution: if you say, laying on of hands is the external sign: we answer, that the visible sign in a Sacrament must not only be an external action, but a material element, as water in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. The form (you say) is in these words pronounced by the Bishop, Accipite potestatem offerendi sacrificium, Receive ye power to offer sacrifice, Bellarm. ca 9 We answer again, that this sacrificing office, hath no foundation in Scripture: the Ministers of the Gospel are called dispensers of God's Mysteries: namely, of the word and Sacraments, 1. Corinth. 4.1. Ministers for Christ, not sacrificers of Christ: wherefore neither have ye any word of institution; and consequently no Sacrament. And I pray you tell me, if you will make every one of your orders a Sacrament; then must you needs have as many Sacraments as there are orders: and so shall you have six Sacraments more than you thought: for you do distinguish all the orders in office and form of consecration one from another: and therefore, they cannot all make one Sacrament. Epist. 118. cap. 1. Augustine saith, Christus Sacramentis numer● paucissimis societatem populi colligavit: Christ hath joined together his people with most few Sacraments: and then he nameth Baptism and the Communion: Et si quid aliud in Scriptures canonicis commendatur: and if any other be commended in Scripture: Ergo, there is no Sacrament of orders, because it is not found in Scripture, as we have said. OF THE EFFICACY, WHICH THEY ascribe to this sacrament. The Papists. THis sacrament of Orders, as they call it▪ giveth a double grace. First, it giveth error 49 those that are ordained, ability and power to execute their office: which is to consecrate and offer up the body and blood of Christ; wherein chief the priesthood consisteth, and not in preaching the word: for they may be priests, though they preach not, Concil. Trident. sess. 23. can. 1. By holy orders then the holy Ghost is actually bestowed, when those words are pronounced, Accip● spiritum sanctum, receive ye the holy Ghost. Canon. 4. The Protestants. FIrst, the Gospel alloweth no external sacrificing priesthood, but a spiritual only, whereby every Christian is made a king and priest to offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving unto God, Apocal. 1.6. And the only essential part of the office of Ministers under the Gospel, is, to be able dispensers of the mysteries of the word and sacraments, 1. Corint. 4.1. 2. Corinth. 3.6. So Augustine also saith: In Apoc. hom. 2. Quicunque aut Episcopus aut presbyter frequenter de Deo loquitur, & quomodo ad vitam aeternam perveniatur annuntiat, meritò Angelus Dei dicitur. Whosoever Bishop or presbyter doth speak freely of God, and preacheth the way to eternal life, is an Angel of God. This then is the only principal office of true Pastors, to tea●h the way to the kingdom of God. Secondly, it is also a great untruth, that the holy Ghost is straightway given to all those, upon whomsoever hands are laid, and they admitted to Orders: For what need then that trial and examination, which ought to be had of those, which are to be ordained, whereof Saint Paul speaketh, 1. Timoth. 5.22. if the only laying on of hands can make able Ministers? Nostri sacerdotes, saith one, Ex veter. testam. qu. 1●9. inter opera Aug. super multos quotidie nomen Domini & verba benedictionis imponunt, sed in paucis effectus est: Our priests do lay the word of blessing upon many, calling upon the name of God, but in few followeth any effect of that blessing: And he giveth the reason in another place, Dei est, effectum tribuere benedictionis: It belongeth unto God, to give effect to Priestly blessing. Ergo, it is not by only act and using of the ceremony bestowed. The Papists. AN other effect of their sacrament of orders, they say, is to imprint a certain error 50 indelible mark & character in him that is ordained, which can neither by sin, Apostasy, or heresy be blotted out, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 1. sect. 7. And therefore a priest once ordained can never lose his orders, or become a lay man again, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 4. Bellarmin. cap. 10. The Protestants. FIrst, the practice of the popish Church is contrary to their own rules: for I would have them tell me, whether they took not the priesthood and anointing from john Husse, when with a pair of shears they clipped off the skin of his head most cruelly, as they were busy in disgrading of him, in the Council of Constance: Fox. p. 623. Or when they had grossly abused that reverend father, Bishop Cranmer, and unmannerly behaved themselves in his degradation, and clapped him in a poor beggarly, threadbare, Lay man's gown: did they not think, that they had despoiled him of his priesthood? What is now become, masters, of your indelible character? Or is it your meaning, that it may be clipped or scraped off only, but not washed off, or lightly rubbed away? Your own cruel deeds do overthrow your popish principles. Augustine is against you: Constitutum est in ecclesia, ne quisquam post criminis alicuius poenitentiam clericatum accipiat, ad clericatum redeat, aut in clericatu maneat: It is a constitution of the Church, that no man after public penance done for some notorious crime, should be either made a clerk, or return to his clerkship or priesthood, or be suffered to continue therein. If his priesthood were neither restored to him, nor he suffered to remain therein, then surely he had lost his priesthood. THE THIRD PART, OF THE ceremonies. The Papists. error 51 THey do anoint the hands of such as are ordained, with oil, and do enjoin them to shave their crowns. And the higher degree of priesthood they have, so much broader must their shaven crown be, Tileman. Heshus. loc. 14. Err. 5. Bellarm. cap. 12. The Protestants. WE have the same opinion of these ceremonies, as we have of the popish orders themselves, counting them worthy of no place in the Church of God. As for the superstitious custom of anointing, it is a jewish rite, better beseeming Aaron's order, than the Ministers of jesus Christ: Look how he was anointed, so are we: of him it is said, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me, Luk. 4.18. So the inward working of the spirit is our anointing, 1. john 2.27. Again, in divers places of the scripture we read of ordaining by imposition of hands, Act. 13.3. 1. Timoth. 4.14. & 5.22. 2. Timoth. 1.6. But there is no mention at all made of anointing with oil. And as for the shaving of the crown, it it is worse than a jewish ceremony: for it seemeth to have taken beginning from the heathen: and the jews were forbidden to cut or make bald their heads, Deuteronom. 14.1. Levit. 19.28. In so much, as it was a sign of more holiness amongst them not to suffer the razor to come upon their heads, as it is to be seen in the law of the Nazarites, Numbers 6. The rest of the questions that concern the calling of ministers, we have entreated of more at large, controvers. 5. of Ecclesiastical persons. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF EXTREME Unction. First, whether it be a sacrament. Secondly, of the efficacy. Thirdly, of the ceremonies. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER EXtreme Unction be a sacrament. The Papists. THat extreme Unction is rightly and properly a sacrament, which is error 52 (say they) the anointing of those that are extreme sick, to assure them of remission of their sins: it was concluded in the Chapter of Trent. sess. 14. can. 1. and is generally maintained by the Church of Rome, Bellarmin. cap. 2. Argum. jam. 5.14. The sacrament of extreme Unction in this place is plainly promulgated by the Apostle, being instituted before by our Saviour Christ, Mark 6.13. For here is remission of sins promised to the outward element, that is, the anointing of the sick with oil: Ergo, a sacrament, Rhemist. Ans. 1. This anointing of oil, was a sign only of the miraculous gift of healing, that was then in the Church, and therefore was no longer to continue, than the gift itself. But it is not like, will they say, that every one of the Elders had this miraculous gift of healing. Answer: Though every particular Elder perhaps had it not, yet the whole company of the Eldership might have it, as Saint Paul speaketh of the gift of prophesy given to the Eldership, 1. Timoth. 4.14. And it is not like that the Apostle would have promised health by calling for the Elders, if the gift had not been general in every congregation. Ans. 2. Neither is remission of sins annexed to the element, but to the general doctrine of prayer made in faith. The prayer of faith, saith the Apostle, shall heal the sick. The Protestants. EXtreme Unction is no convenient ceremony at all to be used in the Church, as tending to superstition, and breeding a vain confidence in terrene elements: much less is it to be holden for a sacrament. Argum. 1. It hath no institution from Christ: For they themselves confess, that Mark 6.13. there is but a preparative to the sacrament of extreme Unction, Rhemist. the promulgation and publishing thereof is set forth by the Apostle, jam. 5. But this is not to be admitted, that Christ was a preparer of sacraments only, and that they were perfited and finished by his Apostles: Nay, they were not to add any thing to the institution of sacraments, but to take them as Christ delivered them, 1. Cor. 11.23. Again, the place in james maketh nothing for their popish aneeling: for the Apostle would have all the Elders called: but one priest is sufficient to bring your ointment box. Secondly, if any man be sick, saith Saint james, though it be not deadly or mortal sickness, but whensoever he is sick: But your Unction is never ministered before the point of death. Thirdly, here health is certainly promised: But not one amongst ten recovereth after your popish aneeling. Argum. 2. Christ used sometime clay, and spittle, sometime other elements in healing the diseased, as the Apostles used oil: why, I pray you then, may not they be sacraments as well as this? For they were signs of healing but for a time: no more was the anointing with oil. Augustine saith, De latere Christi in cruse sacramenta ecclesiae profluxerunt: The sacraments of the Church issued out of Christ's side upon the Cross: In Psa. 40. There gushed out▪ ●●is side, water and blood: but we read not that any oil was shed from 〈◊〉: therefore by Augustine's argument, Unction is no sacrament. THE SECOND PART, OF THE effect and virtue of extreme Unction. The Papists. error 53 FIrst, it giveth health of body. Secondly, it wipeth away the relics of sin: And therefore the priest thus saith, Per istam sanctam Vnctionem, & suam pijssimam misericordiam, indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid deliquisti per visum, etc. By the virtue of this holy ointment, and the most merciful favour of God, the Lord forgive thee, what thou hast offended by thy sight, hearing, etc. Bellarm. cap. 7.8. The Protestants. 1 YOur popish aneeling is not able to heal the body, as we see by daily experience: for more die then live after your anointing: And they that do recover should do as well without your aneeling. Wherefore this anointing of oil is not like to that used by the Apostles: for then health certainly followed, jam. 5.14. 2 It is also a great blasphemy, to ascribe remission of sins to a terrene and beggarly element: The Apostle saith not the oil, but the Prayer of faith shall save the sick. The scripture also testifieth, that the just shall live by faith, Rom. 1.17. And we walk by faith, not by sight, 2. Corinth. 5.7. But he that ascribeth remission of sins to oil or any other external element, walketh by sight, not by faith. THE THIRD PART, OF THE MINISTER of extreme Unction, and the ceremonies. The Papists. FIrst, they give power only unto their anointed Mass priests, to aneeal the sick with oil. Lay men have no authority to do it, nor whosoever are error 54 no Priests, Concil. Trident. sess. 14. can. 4. Secondly, for the rite and ceremony, the Priest coming to the sick must anoint his five senses; his eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands: also the reins, which is the seat of concupiscence, and his feet, which are the instruments of execution, Bellarmin. cap. 10. The Protestants. 1 THis anointing which Saint james speaketh of, was done by the whole company of Elders in every 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 lawful for lay men and all Christians to use this anointing, see Fulk. annot. jam. 5. sect. 5. 2 What need the body be anointed in so many places? It is mere superstition: of the like mind was Peter sometime, when he said to Christ, who would wash his feet; Lord, not my feet only, but my hands and my head. To whom Christ answered: He that is washed, need not save to wash his feet, but is clean all, john. 13.9. Where, although the words of Christ have a spiritual meaning: yet we see the evident and plain practice of them in Baptism: In the which sacrament, we doubt not, but that infants are thoroughly baptised though every part be not touched with water. And even so, if your aneeling were a sacrament: why might it not suffice, in some one part of the body to be anointed, and not in so many? This we are sure of, that now you speak without book. For the Apostle maketh no mention, of anointing eyes, hands, or mouth, but only generally of anointing the sick. And thus it appeareth that your extreme Unction is no sacrament, nor any of the other four, which you have invented. THE CONCLUSION OF THIS treatise concerning the sacrament. THus, I trust, we have made it plain by scripture, and evidence of argument, that there are but two sacraments only, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, left and enjoined to the people of God by our Saviour Christ: for four things are required to make a sacrament: First, the authority of Christ in commanding it. Secondly, the element or external sign, as the matter. Thirdly, the word of institution, as the form. Fourthly, the end and use, to be a seal of our faith for remission of sins. 1 Concerning the efficient cause, we find that two sacraments only in the new testament, are commanded by Christ to be used for ever in the Church, Baptism, and the Lords Supper: which both by his own example and presence, as also his precept and commandment were established. 2 There must be an outward visible elemental sign, as is water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. But so is there not in the five popish sacraments: For in some there is no sign at all, as in Matrimony, where they are driven to say, that the parties that are married are the signs: In some there is a sign, but not visible, as in absolution, the audible voice of the priest ponouncing the words of absolution is, they say, the outward sign: But in all the sacraments of Christ's institution, we find a visible sign. In some there is an outward sign, but it is an action or gesture only, no material element, which is not sufficient, so is the imposition of hands in giving of Orders. In some there is a material sign, as Chrism in Confirmation, oil in extreme Unction, but they are not of Christ's institution. 3 They also want a word of institution: In Penance the priest saith, I do absolve thee, after particular confession made of his sins. In Confirmation the words are, I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, Son, etc. In Matrimony, I take thee to my wife. In giving of Orders, Receive thou power to offer up the body of Christ. In extreme Unction, God by the virtue of this oil forgive thee thy sin. These, they say, are the words of the institution: But they can show no word of God for them: for it is not every word that sanctifieth, but only the word of God, 1. Tim. 4. Wherefore, seeing they have no word of institution, they are no sacraments. Lastly, they want the true use and end of a sacrament, which is, to strengthen our faith for the remission of sins: for in some of these there is no relation at all had to the forgiveness of sins: As Matrimony doth but perform, say they, the graces of marriage, as fidelity, mutual love, and such like. Orders do confer the power of priesthood. Here is no sign or assurance of the grace of justification. In the rest, remission of sins is ascribed to other instrumental means, then to faith only, as to satisfactory works in Absolution, to Chrism in Confirmation, to oil in extreme Unction. Wherefore we conclude, because they are no seals of the righteousness of faith, as Saint Paul defineth a sacrament, Rom. 4.11. that they are no sacraments of Christ's institution, but superstitious ceremonies devised by men. HERE ENSVE SUCH questions AND CONTROVERSIES AS ARE MOVED CONCERNING THE Benefits of our redemption, purchased unto us by the death of Christ. THE SEVENTEENTH CONTROVERSY. ALl the benefits of our redemption may be brought to these three heads. Our predestination, vocation, and justification: as they are set down by the Apostle, Rom. 8.30. These three then are the parts of this Controversy. THE FIRST PART, OF Predestination. THe particular questions are these: First, whether predestination be of the wicked to condemnation, as of the elect to salvation. Secondly, whether our election be of mere grace. Thirdly, whether it be certain & unchangeable. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF Reprobation. The Papists. GOd, they say, is not the cause of any man's reprobation or damnation, Rhemist. error 55 annot. Roman. 9.1. He intendeth no man's damnation directly or absolutely, but in respect of their demerits, ibid. sect. 5. Argum. 1. Timoth. 2.4. God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth: Ergo, the perishing or damnation of none must be imputed to God, Rhemist. The Protestants. An. 1 NO man must impute his damnation to God, because the wicked are justly punished for their sins, without any respect had unto the secret counsel of God: yet it is certain, that God, to set forth his glory, as he hath made some the vessels of honour, so others are ordained to be vessels of wrath, without any respect had to their works, either good or evil. And this notwithstanding standeth with the justice of God, to save some, and reject others: for he might justly condemn all to eternal death: Now if notwithstanding he have mercy of some, his justice in the condemnation of the rest is not to be complained of, but his mercy to be extolled in saving of some. God indeed would have all men to be saved, that is, saith Augustine, Omnes homines, Enchirid. cap. 1●3. omne genus humanum intelligamus: by all men we must understand all sorts, or all kinds of men, not every particular man. And this is agreeable to the Apostles meaning, which before exhorted men to pray for kings and princes: and then he giveth this reason, because God would have all men to be saved, that is, high, and low, kings and people, of all sorts. And this place also is to be understood not of the secret, but of the revealed will of God, who offereth unto all the outward means of their salvation. Thus also Augustine expoundeth these words, Remota hac discretione, quam divina scientia intra secretum justitiae suae continet, syncerissimè credendum est, etc. Setting apart the consideration of the secret counsel and justice of God, it is sincerely to be believed, that God would have all men to be saved, that is, offering unto all the outward means of salvation, as his word and sacraments, Contr. articul. fals. imposit. Art. 2. Argum. Rom. 9.22. The Apostle speaketh plainly, that as God hath prepared some vessels unto glory, so also, some are ordained to wrath. And that the counsel of God is most just herein: for as the Potter may dispose of the clay, as it seemeth best to himself, to make of it a vessel of honour or of dishonour at his pleasure: so the Lord hath as great right to deal with his creature. And seeing all things ought to be subdued to the glory of God, which is set forth in the destruction of the rebellious, as in the election of the faithful: it was necessary and requisite, that the Lord should get unto himself both ways a glorious name: therefore he saith, Rom. 9.17. That God had set up Pharaoh, to show his power in him. Augustine saith, Tenenda est inconcussè haec regula, impios in peccatis antequam essent in mundo praescitos esse tantùm, Hypognost. articul. 6. non praedestinatos, poenam autem ijs praedestinatam. This rule we must undoubtedly hold, that the wicked were only foreseen, or foreknown of God in their sins, not predestinate: but their punishment was predestinate. So then God ordaineth not men to sin, but he ordaineth men to punishment, not having relation to their sins▪ but in his own secret counsel. Yet are not the wicked to complain, for they are justly forsaken because of their rebellion and disobedience. Neither are the godly and faithful by this doctrine to be discouraged: for as much as God hath not denied them the grace of his spirit, but hath given them faith and repentance, and strength to walk before him in his fear: all which are pledges unto them of their free election and salvation in Christ. THE SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER PREdestination proceed from the free will and purpose of God, without relation to our works. The Papists. GOd doth not hate or reprobate any man but for sin, or the foresight thereof, error 56 Rhemist. Rom. 9 sect. 2. Neither doth Christ appoint any by his absolute and eternal election, to be partakers of the fruit of his redemption, without any condition or respect of their own works, obedience or free will. Rhem. Heb. 5.9. Argum. Heb. 5.9. He is made the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him: they are not (we see) elected without condition of obedience, Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. 1. GOd indeed electeth all that shall be saved, not with any condition on their behalf, but on his own behalf: for unto them, whom he chooseth, he will give grace to obey, will to believe in him, and to do that he appointeth. Secondly, this place is expounded by that other of Saint Paul, Ephes. 1.4. God hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy: upon the which words Augustine writeth thus: Elegit nos, ut essemus sancti, non quia futuri eramus, sed ut essemus, & secundum bonam voluntatem suam, non nostram, quae bona esse non posset, nisi ipse secundum bonam voluntatem suam, ut bona fieret, subveniret: He hath chosen us, that we should be holy, not because he saw we should be holy, but to the end we might be holy: and according to his good pleasure, not after our own will, which could not be good, unless he according to his good will should assist us to make it good. See then, our holiness and obedience is a fruit and effect of our election, no cause thereof: neither is there any free will or good disposition in man, till God make it free and good. Argum. Rom. 9.16. Our election is not of the willer, nor of the runner, but of God, that showeth mercy. Ergo, the mercy of God is the only ground of our election: for if our faith or works should be foreseen, than it were of the willer and of the runner, which the Apostle here denieth. And to this purpose the Apostle bringeth in the example of jacob and Esau, over whom the Lord had cast his lots: jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, before they were yet borne, or had done either good or evil: as Augustine saith, In epistol. ad Rom. 9 Vt totum, quicquid essent, secundum misericordiam se esse cognoscerent. And all to this end, that they should ascribe all, whatsoever was in them, to the mercy of God. Yea the Rhemists confess against themselves, that God's mere mercy is seen in the elect, Rom. 9 sect. 2. Ergo, our election is a work of God's mere mercy: there is then no respect at all to be had to our works, for than were it not of God's mere and sole mercy. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE certainty of Predestination. The Papists. error 57 1. THere are two parts of this question: first, whether God's decree, concerning the election of men be certain and unchangeable: secondly, whether a man in this life may in himself be assured of his election. The first our adversaries dare not plainly affirm: for it were great blasphemy openly to say, that God's decree may be changed: yet they do in circumstance of speech affirm it: as Rhemist. Act. 27. sec. 3. (Men cannot be saved, though they be predestinate, unless they keep Gods commandments.) As though it were possible for men predestinate, not to keep the commandments of God, or in the end not to be saved. Likewise it was concluded in the Council of Trent, sess. 6. can. 23. that the grace of justification may be lost: which is as much to say, that a man may lose his predestination: for none are justified, but whom God before hath predestinate, Rom. 8.30. They cannot therefore fall away from the grace of justification, unless they fall away from predestination. The Protestants. THat the decree of God, concerning such as shall be saved, remaineth sure and certain, and that it is impossible for any of the Elect to fall away, the Scripture every where proveth. Argum. Whom God loveth, he loveth to the end, john. 13.1. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance, Rom. 11.29. My father is greater than all, and no man is able to take them out of his hand, john. 10.29. Ergo, our election is certain, for With God there is not so much as any shadow of change, jam. 1.17. Augustine saith, Horum, qui electi sunt, si quispiam perit, fallitur Deus, sed ●emo eorum perit, quia non fallitur Deus: Of the Elect, if any perish, God is deceived: but none of them can perish, because God cannot be deceived, De corrept. & great. cap. 7. The Papists. error 58 FOr every man to be assured infallibly that he shall be saved without special revelation, is a most damnable, false illusion, and presumption, Rom. 8. sect. 9 They call it a faithless persuasion of salvation, to be confident of God's grace and salvation, and fides daemoniorum, not Apostolorum, the faith of devils, not of Apostles: Rhemist. 1. Corint. 9 sect. 9 So the Tridentine Council call certitudinem remissionis peccatorum, vanam, & ab omni pietate remotam fi●uciam, the certainty of remission of sins, a vain and faithless persuasion. And therefore every man, De gratia formidare, & timere potest, may stand in doubt, and be afraid, whether he be in the state of grace, sess. 6. cap. 9 Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith: I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified: Paul durst not assure himself, whether he were justified, Rhemist. Ans. Paul was most sure of God's grace, and his justification through faith, Rom. 8.30. But he doth acknowledge, that he is not justified by his faithful labours in the Gospel, or any other works of his own, although he were clear in conscience. Argum. 2. Philip. 2.12. Work your salvation with fear and trembling: Ergo, men must not be secure of their salvation. Ans. We do not teach men to walk securely, or presume of their election. But we protest unto them, that seeing men are predestinate unto good works, that unless they be careful to lead an holy life, they have no part in predestination: yet we teach men notwithstanding, assuredly to believe the promises of God made to all those that believe, to be saved. And this confidence doth very well agree with the fear of God. The Protestants. Our security of salvation is no vain presumption, but an assurance upon the word of God, that through faith in God, and walking in that way which God hath appointed us, we shall undoubtedly come in the end to eternal life. Argum. 1. As our election is certain, sure, and undoubted before God: so it is the Lords pleasure, that every Christian while he liveth, may and aught in himself to be assured thereof by a lively faith: as Saint Peter teacheth us to labour and give our diligence to make our calling & election sure, 2. Pet. 1.10. Argum. 2. Rom. 8.38. S. Paul saith, I am sure, that neither death nor life, etc. shall separate us from the love of God in Christ jesus: Ergo, the Apostle was certain of his salvation. Rhemist. First, the Apostle speaketh only in general: as if he should have said, So many as are elected, cannot certainly perish. Ans. It is false, for the Apostle pronounceth particularly of himself: As more plainly, 2. Timoth. 4 8. From henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. Rhemist. Secondly, Saint Paul might have this persuasion by some especial revelation. Ans. The ground of the Apostles persuasion is none other, but that which is common to all the faithful, the love of God in Christ. And so Augustine interpreteth this place, writing thus: Isti, significati sunt ad Timotheum, etc. These, of whom the Apostle speaketh, are signified in another place to Timoth. 2.2.19. The foundation of God remaineth sure, the Lord knoweth who are his: De corrept & gra●. 7. Ergo, this assurance and confidence is common, though not in the like measure to all faithful Christians. Augustine also saith: Quia non secundum merita nostra sed illius misericordiam firma est promissio, nemo debet cum trepidatione praedicare, unde non potest dubitare. Because the promise remaineth steadfast, not by our works, but his mercy: we must not with trembling and fearfulness pronounce that, whereof we cannot doubt. No marvel then if Papists doubt of their salvation, because their confidence is built upon their works: but if they would with the faithful of God, renounce their own works, and be content to submit themselves to the faith of Christ, they would not think it so strange a thing, for Christians to have a full and steadfast persuasion of their salvation. THE SECOND PART, OF THE BENEFIT of our vocation, to the which belongeth the knowledge of sin and the law. THE FIRST QUESTION, of sin. THe parts of this question are these: first, of original sin: secondly, of the difference of sins: thirdly, of venial sins: four, whether all sins be remissible: fifthly, whether God be the author of sin: sixthly, whether the works of the not regenerate are sin. THE FIRST PART, OF original sin. The Papists. error 59 COncupiscence (which we also call original sin) remaining after Baptism, is not properly a sin, nor forbidden by commandment, till it reign in us, and we obey the desires thereof: it is called sin, because it is the matter, effect, and occasion of sin, Rhemist. Rom. 6. sect. 6. Concil. Trident. sess. 5. Argum. jam. 1.15. Concupiscence, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin: Ergo, it is not sin of itself: but when the consent of will cometh, sin is engendered, Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. THe argument followeth not, concupiscence bringeth forth sin, Ergo, it is no sin: nay it shall the rather be sin: as one serpent bringeth forth another, so both the mother and daughter are sin: for evil fruits do show an evil tree. Argum. Saint Paul saith, that concupiscence is flatly forbidden by the law, which saith, Thou shalt not lust, Rom. 7.7. And vers. 17. He calleth it sin dwelling in us, though it do not reign in us: Ergo, it is properly sin. Augustine saith, Omnium malorum reatu caret, qui baptizatur, non omnibus malis: He that is baptised is cleared from the guilt of all evils or sins, but not from the evils themselves. Dimittuntur in Baptismo omnia peccata, & originaliter tracta, & ignoranter, vel scienter adiecta: All sins are forgiven in Baptism, both original, and committed ignorantly or wittingly. Therefore original sin is no otherways taken away in Baptism, than other sins are: but the guilt only of other sins is remitted in Baptism, the blot or stain remaineth still: Ergo, original sin ceaseth in respect of the guilt: for neither it, nor any other sins shall be imputed unto those, which are justified in Christ: But it is a sin still, as the rest are. Augustine also dare call it a sin: Concupiscentia peior est ignorantia. Concupiscence is worse than ignorance. Cont. julian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Epistol. 105 And in another place: Ignorantia in ijs, qui intelligere noluerunt, peccatum est: in ijs qui non potuerunt, poena peccati: But ignorance is in them which are able to learn, sin: in those that cannot; a punishment of sin. If ignorance be sin, concupiscence worse than ignorance, is much more. THE SECOND PART, OF THE difference of sins. The Papists. SOme sins are deadly or mortal, because all that do them are worthy of error 60 damnation: others be venial, that is to say, pardonable of their own nature, Rhemist. Rom. 1.11. Argum. Sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death, jam. 1.15. Ergo, not all sin, but that which is consummate and perfited is mortal, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. Out of this place it is gathered, that there are degrees of sin, and that the more heinous sin is worthy of more grievous death and condemnation: but that concupiscence, or other less sins deserve not death, it is not hence proved: seeing the Scripture saith, That the wages of all sin is death, Rom. 6.23. Argum. That no sin is venial or pardonable of it own nature, but that the least deserveth death, if God should deal with us, according to the exact rule of his justice, it thus appeareth. First, if all sins are not mortal, Christ died not for all sins: for he by his death did satisfy only for sins, that deserved death: but Christ died for all sins, john. 1.19. Secondly, all transgression of God's law is sin, and deserveth the curse of God, Galath. 3.10. But all sin is the transgression of the law, 1. john 3.4. Augustine and other of the fathers do use this term of venial sins, but not in their sense, as though any sin in it own nature deserved pardon: but by venial sins, they understand the lesser and smaller faults, which are more easily forgiven at God's hand, than the greater. Sunt venialiae peccata, there are certain venial sins, without the which a man cannot live, saith Augustine: Propter omnia peccata baptismus inventus est, propter levia oratio dominica: For all sins Baptism is a remedy, and the Lords prayer for the less: De symbolo lib. 1.6. By venial sins he understandeth the smaller sins, which are not pardonable in their own nature, for than it were not necessary to ask forgiveness for them in the Lord's prayer: they would vanish away of themselves. Wherefore we cannot receive this popish distinction of venial and mortal sins, as they understand it: as the Scripture useth to speak, we do not greatly mislike them; that is, by grace and mercy in Christ, all sins even the greatest, are not only pardonable, but pardoned unto us, Isay 1.18. But unto the wicked and impenitent every sin is mortal; they shall even by their idle words be condemned, Matth. 12.36.37. THE THIRD PART, OF THOSE, which they call venial sins. The Papists. error 61 1. Sin is voluntary, otherwise it is no sin: and therefore the passions that are in men, having not the consent of will, are far from sin, and are not imputed to any man: neither for them need he say unto God, Forgive us our sins, Rhemist. Rom. 7. sec. 8.9. The Protestants. Sins done without consent of the inward man, are never imputed: but this must be understood only of the regenerate: in whom there is a new man, borne of the spirit. Argum. That involuntary lusts which arise in the heart, not having the consent of will, are in their nature sin, it is evident by Saint Paul's words, Rom. 7.20. If I do that I would not, then is it not I any longer, that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me: he calleth it sin, though he consent not unto it. In Psal. 105 Augustine saith, Peccata negligentiae vel ignorantiae melius accusantur, ut pereant, quàm excusantur, ut maneant, meliusque purgantur invocato Deo, quàm firmantur irritato Deo: The sins of negligence and ignorance are better accused and confessed, then excused, better by praying to God to purge them, then by provoking God to confirm them. Ergo, forgiveness must be asked at God's hand for involuntary sins, sins of ignorance. The Papists. 2. THe motions of the flesh in a just man, whereunto the mind of man consenteth not, cannot any whit defile the operations of the spirit, but error 62 make them often more meritorious, for the continual combat that he hath with them: for it is plain, that the operations of the flesh and the spirit do not concur together to make one act, Rhemist. Rom. 7. sect. 10. The Protestants. Ans. THough the operations of the flesh concur not with the spirit in any one act: yet do they hinder the works of the spirit from perfection, and therefore defile them. Argum. Rom. 7.19. Saint Paul saith, The good that I would, do I not. Did not concupiscence even in this blessed Apostle hinder the proceed of the spirit, when it kept him from doing that good, which he desired? and whereas he crieth out, and desireth to be delivered from that law of his members, vers. 24. it is not like that any merit, or good thing can be obtained by it: for than he should rather have been desirous to have given it entertainment still. Augustine thus writeth of these smaller and less sins: Quibus peccatis licet occidi animam non credamus, De sanct. serm. 41. ita tamen eam veluti quibusdam pustulis deformem faciunt, ut eam ad amplexum sponsi, sine grandi confusione venire non permittant. By the which sins, though the soul be not slain; yet the face is deformed as with pimples, that she dare not without great blushing draw near unto her spouse. Let them tell me now, what great glory is obtained, by this corruption in our members. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER all sins be remissible. The Papists. ALL sins are pardonable, so long as the committers of them be in case error 63 to repent: as they are, so long as they live in this world: It is great blasphemy therefore, which the Caluinists utter, that Apostasy and certain other sins of the reprobate, cannot be forgiven at all in this life, Rhemist. 1. john. 1.5. sec. 4. And therefore they say, that blasphemy against the spirit is said to be irremissible, because it is hardly forgiven: And they define sin against the holy Ghost, to be nothing else, but final impenitency, Rhemist. Matth. 12.4. The Protestants. FIrst, sin against the holy Ghost, is not final impenitency: every one indeed that so sinneth, is finally impenitent, because he shall never have the grace to repent: But our Saviour Christ meaneth some special sin, in calling it blasphemy against the holy Ghost: for many a wicked man may die impenitently, and yet not blaspheme. Augustine better defineth this sin: Cum quis adversus gratiam ipsam, qua reconciliatus est Deo, invidentiae facibus agitatur: When a man maliciously doth oppugn that grace, whereby he was reconciled to God: lib. 1. de serm. in mont. 41. But most perfectly is this sin described, Heb. 10.29. where there are set down three circumstances that make this sin: first, the person; he must be such an one as hath been lightened with grace, and been in outward appearance sanctified: therefore jews, Turks, or Infidels, cannot commit this sin; because their minds were never illuminate by the truth. Secondly, his affection must be considered, which is most deadly and hateful in the highest degree: blaspheming the spirit, and despiting the same, crucifying and persecuting Christ again as it were, Heb. 6.6. Wherefore they which offend of ignorance, or infirmity and weakness, or which fall not into horrible blasphemies, are not guilty of this sin. Thirdly, it is the truth which they hate and detest, which sometime they loved, and were thereby sanctified: They count the blood of the testament as an unholy thing. Blasphemy then against the holy Ghost, is an horrible hatred and detestation of the truth, and grace of God's spirit, whereby he that now blasphemeth, was before illuminate. Secondly, this sin not only easily shall not be forgiven, but not at all, as our Saviour saith, Neither in this world, nor the world to come, Math. 12.32. And it is impossible for them to be renewed by repentance, Heb. 6.6. Wherefore it is a great blasphemy in the Papists, so contrary to the Scripture to affirm, that blasphemy against the spirit may be forgiven. THE FIFTH PART, WHETHER God be the author of sin. The Papists. error 64 NO sin standeth with the will or intention of God, but is directly against it, Rom. 3. sect. 4. And therefore Christ's death was Gods act no otherwise, then by permission, Act. 3. sect. 2. Neither is God the author of sin, otherwise then by permission, and withholding of his grace, jam. 1.13. Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. 1. ALL sin is against the will of God revealed in his word, although nothing can come to pass, contrary to the determinate and secret will of God. Secondly, God did not only permit the jews to work their malice upon Christ, but most holily and most justly he used their malice, to bring his purpose to pass: for the text is, That Christ was delivered up according to the determinate counsel of God, Act. 2.23. which must needs be more than a bare permission. Thirdly, although God be not any mover unto sin, yet as a just judge he not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation those whom in justice he delivereth up to Satan. Argum. It is a petition which we daily rehearse in the Lord's prayer, Led us not into temptation: Likewise, Rom. 11.8. God gave them the spirit of compunction. These speeches of leading and giving, imply an active power in God, not a passive and permissive only: for how is it possible, that God being omnipotent, should permit or suffer any thing to be done in the world, con●●●ry to his will? Augustine upon those words of David, concerning Shemei, Let him alone, what know I, if God have sent him to curse? Not, saith he, De libero arbitrio. cap. 20. that God bade him curse, for then his obedience should be commended: Sed quod eius voluntatem proprio suo vitiomalam, in hoc peccatum judicio suo justo & occul●o inclinavit: But because, God by his just and secret judgement did incline his will being corrupt of itself, unto this mischief. Lo he saith, inclinavit, he did incline his will, which is more than permisit, he did suffer him. THE sixth PART, OF THE WORKS of those which are not regenerate. The Papists. THe works done before justification, although they do not proceed of faith, are not properly to be called sins, neither do they deserve the wrath of error 65 God, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. can. 7. Andrad. Tilem. loc. 4. er. 6. The Protestants. THe works which were done of the heathen without faith, and of carnal men before they are called, how goodly soever they seem in the sight of men, are nothing else but peccata speciosa, glorious and goodly sins. Argum. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14. And without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 6.6. Seeing then they could not please God with their faithless works, they must needs be in danger of his wrath: Augustine writeth thus: Si ad consequendam beatam vitam, quam nobis fides, quae in Christo est, promittit, nihil prosunt homini virtutes, nullo modo possunt verae esse virtutes. If men's virtues help them not towards the attaining of eternal life, Cont. julian. lib. 4. cap. 3. which is promised only by faith in Christ, they cannot be said truly to be virtues: but such are the works of men before they have faith: Ergo, if they be not virtuous actions, what are they else but vicious and sinful? THE SECOND QUESTION, CONCERNING the law, with the several parts thereof. THe parts of this question are these. First, whether it be possible in this life to keep the law. Secondly, whether just men do sin. Thirdly, of the works of supererogation. Fourthly, whether God be to be served for hope of reward, or fear of punishment. Fiftly, of the use and office of the Law. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER IT BE possible in this life to keep the Law. The Papists. 1. IF any man say, that the precepts and commandments of God unto a man error 66 justified, and in the state of grace are impossible to be kept, let him be accursed, Concil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 18. Argum. Rom. 8.4. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us: Ergo, the law of God by the grace of Christ may be kept, and the keeping thereof is our justice. S. john also saith, The commandments of God are not heavy, 1. joh. 5.3. And our Saviour saith, His yoke is sweet, and his burden light: Ergo, the commandments of God are possible to be fulfilled in this life. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, the Apostle saith not, that the law is fulfilled by us, but in us by Christ, who is made our righteousness and sanctification by faith, 1. Cor. 1.30. The law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us through the weakness of our flesh neither doth God give us ability to keep it: but, Christ hath fulfilled it for us, we notwithstanding being bound to walk in obedience to the commandments of God, which is far off from perfection, or keeping the law as God's justice requireth. 2. To him that is borne of God, and his sins pardoned by the grace of Christ, the commandments of God are not grievous, not because they can perfectly be fulfilled, but because strength is given to keep them in part, and the curse of the law is taken away, and our transgressions answered in Christ. Argum. 1. If it were possible for any man to keep the law, it is possible in this life to be without sin: But if any man say he hath no sin, he is a liar, 1. joh. 1.8. Argum. 2. S. james saith▪ 2.10. If a man should keep the whole law, and yet fail in one point, is guilty of all. He than that will keep the law, must keep it perfectly, and not fail in the least point: but so is no mortal man able to do: wherefore it is an horrible blasphemy, to say, that it is possible for any mortal man to keep the whole law. Augustine thus expoundeth that place, Philip. 3.15. Let us, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: by the which place the Rhemists would prove a perfection of justice in this life, Potest quis esse perfectus justitiae cognitor, licet non sit perfectus effector. A man may know the rule of justice perfectly, though he be not a perfect doer: he understandeth a perfection of knowledge, not a perfection of justice. The Papists. 2. THey say, that those sins which they call venial, that is, the lesser & smaller error 67 offences, do not hinder the justice of men, but that they may truly be called and are indeed just for all those sins: and may notwithstanding them keep the law of God, and be free from the curse thereof, which is laid upon mortal and great sins, not venial and smaller offences, Rhemist. 1. john 1. sect. 5. Galath. 3. sect. 4. The Protestants. THat men are just before God, for all their daily transgressions of frailty, and manifold infirmities by the righteousness of Christ, made theirs by a lively faith; we deny not: but that there is no perfect inherent justice in themselves, neither that they can perfectly keep the law, because of those sins, thus we prove it out of the word of God. Argu. They which do but in the least point break the law, are subject to the curse thereof: for it is written, Cursed is he that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them, Galath. 3.10. And what is to be understood by all things our Saviour declareth, Math. 5. where he showeth how murder may be committed in the affection, and in the tongue, and adultery likewise in the eye: Ergo, the smaller offences are also transgressions of the law: from the which seeing the most righteous men upon earth are not free, they cannot perfectly keep the law, nor by their own justice escape the curse thereof. Augustine: Custodit vias Dei, qui non sic exorbitat, ut eas relinquat, De perfect. justit. count Celest. sed in eyes currendo proficit, et si aliquando ut infirmus titubat, proficit tamen minuendo peccata. He is said to keep the ways of God, which doth not so turn aside out of them, that he altogether leave them: but doth daily profit and go forward in keeping of them: and although he sometime stumble, yet he profiteth by diminishing of his sins. As he therefore that stumbleth, and is turned sometime out of the way, doth not perfectly keep the way: no more doth the righteous man perfectly keep the law of God, which he transgresseth by his daily sins. In isto ergo conflictu induimur ea justitia, qua ex fide vivitur: In this conflict therefore let us put on the righteousness of faith: he giveth counsel that men should leave their own righteousness, and rather labour to live by faith, and be counted righteous in Christ. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER just men do sin. The Papists. error 68 1. A Just man in his good works doth not sin, so much as venially, that is, not in the least manner, no not at all, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. can. 25. Whereupon it followeth, that the good works of righteous men are so perfect, that the least imperfection or blot cannot be found in them. The Protestants. THe most righteous men upon earth have not only their infirmities, and are in danger to sin daily: but even their best and most holy works are blemished with some infirmity, and have a smack of sin. Argum. job saith, If I wash myself with snow water, and purge myself most clean, yet mine own clothes shall make me filthy, job 9.30. that is, though he should allege for himself, the best works that ever he did, yet even in those the Lord could find out matter against him. Yea, S. Paul saith, That he knew nothing by himself, his own conscience did not accuse him, yet was he not thereby justified, 1. Corinth. 4.4. The reason is given by S. john, that Although a man's hart condemn him not, yet God is greater than our hart, 1.3.20. Wherefore there is no work of any man so perfect, but before the Lord it may be found faulty: for All our righteousness is as a stained clout. Augustine upon those words of job. 29.14. I put on justice as a rob: Vestis ista belli magis solet esse, De perfect. justit. count Celest. quam pacis, ubi adhuc expugnatur concupiscentia, non ubi erit plena sine aliquo prorsus hoste justitiae. This garment, that is, a cloak or mantle, is rather for war, than peace: for here we do daily fight against concupiscence, and there is no perfect righteousness without some enemy. But if so be any work of ours could be perfect without sin, righteousness sometimes might be without an enemy, which Augustine denieth. The Papists. 2. Mortal sin, they say, cannot consist together with the grace of God, and error 69 cannot be committed by a man continuing the Son of God: for he that is borne of God, saith the Apostle, sinneth not: that is, falleth into no mortal sin, Rhemist. 1. john 3. sect. 5. The Protestants. FIrst, understanding mortal sin as they do, for every sin that deserveth death, as are adultery, theft, murder, their exposition is heretical: for then David should not have been the Son of God, when he committed adultery, and consequently should have been none of the predestinate: he that is once the Son of God, is always even to the end: For whom God loveth, he loveth to the end, john 13.1. Secondly, the Apostles meaning, when he saith, He that is borne of God, sinneth not, is no other than that which S. Paul hath, Rom. 6.12. That sin should not reign in our body, that is, the children of God, though they fall into sin, continue not in it, nor delight therein, neither are wholly overcome of it; for it is true of them, that it is not they that do it, but sin that dwelleth in them, Rom. 7.20. Augustine, Quicunque in Dei providentiss. dispositione praedestinati sunt, De corrept. & great. cap. 9 non dico nondum renati, sed etiam nondum nati, filii Dei sunt, & perire non possunt: Whosoever in the most wise counsel of God are predestinate to salvation, not only before they are regenerate and borne again, but even before they are borne at all, are the Children of God, and cannot perish. If then the elect not yet called, or regenerate, are the Children of God, much more are they that are called and regenerate, though after their calling they do fall into some sin for the time. THE THIRD PART, OF THE WORKS of Supererogation. The Papists. THey teach, that it is not only possible for men to keep the Law of God in error 70 this life, but to do more than is prescribed or commanded: and that men of their abundance may allot unto others such works of supererogation, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 9 sect. 6. ex Tileman. loc. 3. er. 16. Argu. 2. Cor. 8. sect. 3. As your abundance now supplieth their want, their abundance also may supply your want, that there may be equality. Saints or other virtuous persons may in measure and proportion of other men's deservings, allot unto them as well the supererogation of their spiritual works as these, that abound in worldly goods, may give alms of their superfluities, to them which are in necessity, Rhemist. toted. verbi●. Ans. 1. This place proveth no communication of merits of one to another: but that as every one aboundeth in the gifts and graces of God, so they ought to communicate the use thereof one to another's benefit: for no man meriteth himself by any work of his: therefore he cannot communicate that to another, which he hath not himself. Here also mention is made of mutual communication, for one to supply another's want: but he that doth supererogate to another of the abundance of his good works, hath no need to have his wants supplied by another man's deservings: therefore there is no mutual communicating between them, which is the thing whereof the Apostle speaketh in this place. Argum. That no man is helped by another man's deservings, but all that a man can do, is little enough and not sufficient for himself; it is plain in the Gospel: where our Saviour saith, That when we have done all that is commanded, we are unprofitable servants, and did no more than was our duty, Luke 17.10. Ergo, a man can not do more than his duty. We may also remember the parable of the Virgins, Math. 25. where the five wise refuse to give of their oil to the five foolish: lest (say they) there will not be enough for us and you. No man therefore hath attained to such a perfection of goodness, that he is able to spare aught for his brother, but shall have need thereof himself. Augustine writing upon this parable saith, unusquisque pro se rationem reddet, nec alieno testimonio quicquam adiwatur apud Deum: In Math. serm. 22. et vix sibi quisque sufficit, ut sibi testimonium per hibeat conscientia sua. Every man shall give account for himself, neither is a man relieved by another's testimony before God: the testimony of a man's conscience is hardly sufficient for himself. See more of this matter: Controu. 14. quest. 7. part. 4. & quest. 8. part. 3. articul. 2. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER GOD be to be served for hope of reward, or fear of punishment. The Papists. error 71 1. MEn ought to do good in respect and for reward and recompense in heaven for their good works: the Apostle saith of Moses, Heb. 11. He had respect to the recompense of reward, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, we deny, that we ought to make account of heaven to be given as a just recompense deserved by our works: for Life eternal, as the Apostle saith, is the free gift of God, Rom. 6.23. 2. We grant that men in their well doing aught to have respect to the reward, but not chiefly or principally: but the respect of God's glory and their own duty ought to move them more. Argum. Psal. 34.8. Taste and see, how gracious the Lord is! We ought as dutiful children to yield obedience to the Lord, and delight in him, even because of that pleasant taste, comfort and joy, which we feel in his goodness toward us. Augustine saith well, Deus non propterea se amari vult, In Psal. 52. quia dat aliquid praeter se, sed quia dat se: God would not be beloved of us, because he giveth or promiseth any thing beside himself, but because he giveth himself. The Papists. 2. EVen in right Christian godly men there remaineth doubt, mistrust, fear error 72 of hell and damnation: and the fear of God's judgements causeth just men to humble themselves, lest they should be damned. And so S. Paul saith, Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Philipp. 2. Rhemist. 1. john 4. sect. ●. The Protestants. Ans. WE acknowledge a dutiful reverence & fear of God always remaining in the godly: but it is far from that servile and slavish fear, which is caused only by the remembrance of hell fire and eternal judgement: Augustine doth thus resemble the matter: The chaste wife (saith he) and the adulterous do both fear their husbands, sed casta timet ne discedat vir, adultera, ne veniat: But the chaste wife is afraid lest her husband should departed, In Psal. 127 the adulterous is afraid lest he should come. Such a fear as is in the chaste wife, we grant to be in the children of God, but not the other. 2. We also confess, that the horror of hell is profitable to make a way and entrance for the calling of worldly and hard hearted men, as the needle or bristle (as Augustine saith) maketh a way for the thread. But in a man already called, this fear is expelled by love, as the Apostle saith, 1. joh. ●. ●8. For we must be of those that love the appearing of Christ, 2. Tim. 4.8. Not of that number which fear it, and wish it were prolonged. August. Si possumus efficere, fratres, ut dies judicij non veniret, puto, quia nec sic erat, male vivendum. If we could bring it about, that the day of judgement should not come at all, we ought not for all that to live ill. His meaning is, that we ought not to live well only for fear of God's judgements. THE FIFTH PART, OF THE USE 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 salvation, 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 uttered to the young man: Math. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 7. So their opinion is, that the law is made unto us a mean and instrument of our salvation. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, our Saviour uttered those words to the young man, only to humble him thereby, and to teach him to know himself: for otherwise the Apostles should have taught contrary doctrine to their master, who exhort men only to believe, and they shallbe saved, Act. 16.31. Argum. The Law was not ordained to save men, but it serveth only as a Schoolmaster, as S. Paul saith, to bring us to Christ, Galath. 3.24. It also revealeth and discovereth sin, Rom. 7.7. The Apostle also calleth it the kill letter, and ministry of condemnation, 2. Cor. 3.6.9. How then can it procure our salvation? therefore what can be more opposite and contrary to Scripture, than this assertion of theirs? Let Augustine speak: Testimonium legis eyes, qui ea non legitimè utuntur, testimonium est quo convincantur, eyes, qui legitimè utuntur, testimonium est, quo demonstratur, quò liberandi confugere debeant peccatores. The testimony of the law, to them which use it not aright, is a testimony to convince them; to them which do, a testimony to teach them, to whom sinners ought to fly for their deliverance: Ergo, the law doth not itself work our deliverance, but sendeth us to our deliverer. THE THIRD PART, OF THIS controversy of justification. THe particular questions are these. First, of Free will, and the power thereof. Secondly, of Faith. Thirdly, of good works. Fourthly, of the manner of our justification. THE FIRST QUESTION of Free will. THe parts of this question. First, whether free will in spiritual things were utterly extinguished by the sin of Adam. Secondly, of the power and strength of free will in us. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER FREE WILL be utterly lost by the transgression of Adam. The Papists. FRee will is not utterly extinguished, but only 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 Gospel that lay for half dead, Luk. 10. vers. 30. that neither understanding, nor free will, and other powers of the soul, are utterly extinguished and taken away, but wounded only by the sin of Adam, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. IT is but a feeble collection and of small force which they draw from this allegory: for allegories and similitudes, as they know themselves right well, do not hold in all things, but wherein only they are compared: neither do they necessarily conclude. Argum. But that we are altogether dead in sin by the transgression of Adam, the scripture speaketh plainly in many places without allegory, Ephes. 2.1, 5. When we were dead in our sins, he hath quickened us in Christ. Likewise, Coloss. 2.13. he saith not, as in the parable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they left him for half dead, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, plain dead men indeed. Augustine saith, Cum peccavit primus homo, non in part aliqua, sed tota, qua conditus est, natura deliquit: When the first man sinned, Cont. Pela. articul. 3. 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: In johann. tract. 87. Our nature wholly was corrupted by free will, in the very root or original, that is, in Adam: Ergo, all the powers both of body and soul wholly corrupt and decayed in spiritual 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 live well, or to obtain error 75 eternal life: but yet by the power of free will, stirred, prepared and assisted by the grace of God, he is able to do 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 give consent unto it, and to work together with it, Trid. Concil. sess. 6. cap. 5. can. 4. Loc. 31. Eckius setteth down four steps or degrees to justification. The beginning of our calling is only of God, by inspiring of grace into us: this is the first degree. The second is in our own power, to give assent unto grace once inspired. Thirdly, to obtain that, which by so assenting we do desire, is only of God's gift, and this is the third degree, gratiae gratum facientis, of grace which maketh us gracious, or acceptable. The fourth degree of perseverance in the grace of salvation received, is partly in our power and free will, partly of the grace of God. Our Rhemists thus define the matter: Man, they say, was never without free will: but having the grace of Christ he is truly made free, john. 8. sect. 2. Again, though our election, calling, or first coming to God, lie not wholly or principally upon our own will or works: yet our willing or working of any good to our salvation, is the secondary cause; Gods special motion, grace and assistance is the principal, Rom. 9 sect. 4. So then this is their sentence, that neither our free will is so corrupt, that it had need wholly to be assisted by the grace of God, but that it worketh somewhat of itself: nor yet so perfect, that it is able of it own strength to obtain salvation: But their plain meaning is this, that God's grace and man's free will do work actively together, as the Rhemists' note. The Gentiles, though they believed specially by God's grace and preordination, yet they believe also by their own free will, Act. 13. sect. 2. Argum. 2. Timoth. 2.21. If any man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel of honour, 1. john. 3.3. Every man that hath this hope, sanctifieth himself: Ergo, man hath free will to make himself a vessel of salvation, or damnation. And this teacheth us, that man may sanctify himself by his free will, working together with the grace of GOD, Rhemist. in utrumque locum. Ans. First, these places of scripture do not prove, that there is any freedom or liberty in man's will to do good by nature: but that our will being enlarged by God's spirit, consenteth unto grace, not of itself, or by it own power. This then is the difference between us: We hold that our free will is wholly corrupt by nature, and can do nothing, unless it be helped by grace: They say, that there is some strength left by nature in free will, and it worketh together with the grace of God. Argum. 2. If there be no free will unto good, what need exhortations, admonitions, precepts, laws, reward, punishment, seeing nothing is left in a man's own power? Eckius. Ans. Though all good things do come of God, and we have no power in ourselves to do that which good is, yet this hindereth not exhortations, teaching, industry and labour, no more than the doctrine of predestination doth: For as God giveth all grace, so he bestoweth them by means: faith is the gift of God, yet it cometh by hearing. The staff of bread is the blessing of God, yet for all that the husbandman must not leave tilling of his ground. So our will is directed by the grace of God unto goodness: but we must use the means notwithstanding, whereby the grace of God worketh in us. The Protestants. THat it may fully appear wherein the chief point of this controversy lieth, we will first show what manner of free will we deny not to be in man. 1. We confess that our first parents had free will before their fall, both to choose the good, and refuse the evil: as Augustine saith, Magnas liberi arbitrij vires homo cum conderetur, accepit, sed eas peccando amisit: Man by creation had great strength in his free will: but he utterly lost it by his sin. 2. We acknowledge a free will in man, that is, a government of reason, Non per quod sit idoneum, quae ad Deum pertinent, sine Deo, inchoare & perficere, sed tantùm in operibus vitae praesentis, as Augustine saith: Not a free will, whereby men are able to begin or finish any work to Godward, without his grace: but only in the affairs of this life: as to labour, to eat, to drink, to build, to plant, and to do other affairs of this life. These things hath God left unto man's discretion, whom he hath endued with a reasonable soul: yet so, that all these things are governed and directed by the general providence of God. And therefore in all these actions, we must say as the Apostle teacheth us, jam. 4.15. If the Lord will, I will do this or that. But in the preparing of our will unto good, the general providence of GOD is not sufficient, but there must be also a special influence of his grace. 3. A free will to do evil also we grant, free from compulsion or coaction, of itself inclined to evil without any enforcing: as Augustine saith, Liberum hominis arbitrium ad malum sufficit, ad bonum parum est, De corrept. & great. c. 11 nisi adiwetur ab omnipotent bono: The free will of man sufficeth unto evil, but it is of small force unto goodness, unless it be helped by the almighty Good. 4. Neither do we so deny free will in good things, as though men were violently forced, and compelled against their will to the kingdom of GOD, as the Papists do charge us, john. 6. sect. 3. But God so changeth our wills, that of unwilling he maketh us willing: as Augustine, Ex nolentibus volentes facit: and giveth us grace most gladly to embrace Christ: as our Saviour saith, If the Son make you free, then are you free indeed. So man hath free will from coaction, both in evil things, to the which he is voluntarily inclined; as also in good things, wherein his will being regenerate, he walketh willingly without compulsion. 5. Neither do we so take away free will from man, as though there were no more in him, then in a piece of clay, as our adversaries falsely charge us, Rom. 9 sect. 7. As Augustine saith, Non sicut in lapidibus insensatis, aut in ijs, quae rationem non habent, Cont. Pela. 1.5. Deus salutem nostram operatur: God worketh not our salvation in us, as in senseless stones, or in unreasonable creatures: So we do not take away man's proper motions or thoughts, as the Rhemists accuse us. 2. Corinth. 3. sect. 2. God giveth not a new mind, soul, will, or understanding to the regenerate, but only altereth and changeth it: so that it remaineth the same in matter and substance, but God by his grace, casteth it as it were into a new mould, and giveth a new form and shape unto it. De bon. perseveran. lib. 2. ca 13. So August. Cogitantes credimus, cogitantes agimus, quicquid agimus, sed tamen quod attinet ad pietatis viam, & verum Dei cultum, non sumus idonei cogitare aliquid ex nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est: We by our own thoughts believe by our own cogitation we enterprise whatsoever is done, yet in the way of godliness, and in the worship of God, we are not able to think any thing of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Wherefore two things are to be considered in our will and thoughts, the natural power of willing and thinking, and the goodness and holiness of our thoughts: the first is in us, and is properly ours by the gift of God: but the other cometh only of God by his grace. The will, the understanding, the thoughts are ours, but the goodness is merely and entirely wrought by the spirit of God: So that in respect of the goodness inspired into our minds, our wills are altogether passive; in respect of the general power and natural motion of willing, thinking, and understanding, they are also active. The several points then, wherein we and our adversaries descent about free will, are these. 1. They say, that man was never without free will, but it is made more free by grace, Rhemist. john 8. sect. 2. that is, our free will is not altogether corrupt, but there remaineth some freedom therein, even before grace. Ans. Clean contrary to S. Paul, who denieth that in his flesh dwelleth any good thing, Rom. 7.18. but saith, he by nature was wholly sold unto sin, vers. 14. How then can there remain any goodness in our will without grace? Augustine consenteth, Laborant homines invenire in voluntate, quid boni sit nostrum, quod non sit ex Deo, quod quomodo inveniri possit ignoro: Men do labour to find some goodness in the will, that is of ourselves, and not of God: but I am altogether ignorant how any such thing should be found. 2. The beginning of our calling, and the first motions and stir of the heart are of grace, but to consent is wholly in our power: so belike God beginneth the good work and we continue it. This is right the old Pelagian heresy: Gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari: That the grace of God need not be given at every assay: but it is enough if God give a hint, and show us the beginning, and we will perform the rest. This heresy is confuted by Augustine, Epistol. 106. And in another place, Nos eam gratiam volumus, saith he, qua non solum revelatur sapientia, sed amatur, non suadetur bonum, sed persuadetur: De great. Christ. 1.10 We understand that grace, by the which wisdom is not only revealed, but loved, we are not moved and stirred only to good things, but thoroughly persuaded. Wherefore it is not God that beginneth the good work in us only, but also continueth and finisheth it: for all things are by jesus Christ, 1. Corinth. 8.7. no good thing in us but by him. 3. They also renew another heresy of the Pelagians, who taught: That, what men are commanded to do by free will, facilius impleri per gratiam, is but more easily performed by grace. What else do the Rhemists say, Haeres. 83. August. giving this note, that although the Gentiles do especially believe by God's grace, yet they do believe by their free will? Act. 13.2. So grace helpeth them only more especially, fully, or easily to believe. Whereupon it followeth, that they may believe without grace, though not so especially. Now then, we are to prove against our adversaries, that our free will hath no power at all of itself to will or do that which is good, no further than it is guided, and not only in part assisted, but wholly directed by the spirit of God. Argum. 1. Philipp. 2.13. God worketh in us both the will and the deed: yea and the thought to, 2. Cor. 3.5. He saith not, God and we work, but he himself worketh: he is all in all. Argum. 2. john. 6.44. No man cometh to me, unless my father draw him. But he is not drawn that giveth assent of his own accord: for so they say, that God first toucheth the heart with his spirit, and then it is in the power of man to give consent. But the scripture speaketh otherwise: how that God draweth us, he draweth our will, and maketh us to give assent unto his grace. He it is that taketh away the stony heart, and giveth an heart of flesh, Ezech. 11.19. Ergo, he prepareth and addresseth the will wholly. For like as a stone hath no fleshy nature in it, no more hath the natural will of men any goodness dwelling therein. Augustine, Quicquid vult bonum, quicquid potest, à Domino est, Hypogno. count Pelag. articul. 2. quia sine me ait Dominus, nihil potestis facere, john. 15. Whatsoever a man either willeth, or is able to do, it is of God: as the Lord saith in the Gospel, Without me you can do nothing: Ergo, without grace the will is able to do nothing: it is then wholly corrupt in itself. It followeth therefore, that our will and God's grace work not together: but God by his spirit worketh alone in us. THE SECOND QUESTION, of Faith. THe parts of the question. First, what faith is. Secondly, of the divers kinds of faith. Thirdly, of the form of faith. Fourthly, how we are justified by faith. Fiftly, whether faith be meritorious. Sixtly, whether it be in our own power. Seventhly, whether faith may be lost. Eightly, whether wicked men have faith. THE FIRST PART, WHAT FAITH IS, whereby we are justified. The Papists. error 76 Justifying faith, or faith that justifieth, is not, that assured belief and confidence of the heart, whereby we are persuaded that our sins are forgiven us in Christ, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. can. 13. It is a general or universal believing the articles of Christ's death and resurrection, not any fond special faith, fiducia, or confidence, of each man's own salvation, Rhemist. Rom. 4. sect. 9 Argum. Abraham's faith was nothing else but his belief of a certain article revealed unto him from God, and credit given to God's speeches, Rhemist. ibid. Ans. Abraham's faith was not only a general or historical belief, that God's speeches were true; but a sure confidence and trust in God, that his promises pertained unto him: and that he himself should be blessed in that promised seed: as our Saviour testifieth, john. 8.56. Abraham desired to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. For whereof sprang that exceeding joy in Abraham, but upon that certain hope and persuasion which he had of his own salvation in Christ? The Protestants. A justifying faith is not only a general belief of the articles of faith, that Christ was borne, died, rose again for them that believe: but it is an assured and steadfast confidence, whereby every faithful man particularly doth apply to himself the general promises of God, for the hope of remission of his sins in Christ, that Christ died, rose again, and did all the rest, even for him. Argum. 1. Saint james saith, The devils also do believe that God is, and do tremble: jam. 2.19. yea no doubt, but they believe the word of God is true, and confess all the articles of the faith: for they acknowledge Christ to be the Son of the living God, Mark. 5.7. But the faith of devils is no justifying faith: Ergo, neither this historical and general faith. Argum. 2. Saint Paul was saved by no other faith, than the common justifying faith of all Christians: but this faith wrought a particular persuasion in him, From henceforth is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, 2. Timoth. 8. Ergo, such aught the faith of all Christians to be. Augustine saith, Nos non simul omnes, In Psal. 106 sed paulatim & singulatim credentes congregamur in unam quandam civitatem: We (saith he) not believing all at once, but every man asunder and by himself, are gathered into one people. What this singulatim credere, meaneth, he showeth a few lines after: Quicquid, cum loquor, agnoveris in te, quisquis expertus ●s, crede contingere omnibus qui de manu inimicorum precioso sanguine redimuntur: That which I say, thou that hast the experience thereof in thyself, know that it is common to all that are redeemed by that precious blood: Ergo, every man must have a particular feeling and experience of his redemption in himself. The Papists. 2. FAith a man may feel and know to be in himself, because it is an act only of understanding, but a man cannot be assured thereby, that error 77 his sins are forgiven him, or that he is in the state of grace, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 13. sect. 1. The Protestants. Ans. WE see what a poor miserable faith, the faith of popish Catholics is: They say, it is but a bare act of the understanding, which bringeth with it no certainty or assurance of salvation. But the Apostle, Hebr. 11.1. defineth faith after another sort: It is the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Faith than hath two parts, as it worketh the evidence and knowledge of heavenly things in the understanding: so also it begetteth a strong hope and persuasion in the heart of the promises of God: it is not therefore only an act of the understanding. Argum. But that by a lively and true faith, men may know that they are in grace, and may be assured of salvation, Saint Paul teacheth, Prove yourselves whether you be in the faith: know ye not, how that jesus Christ is in you, unless ye be reprobates? 2. Corinth. 13.5. By faith therefore we may know whether Christ be in us: Ergo, whether we are in the state of grace: for Christ dwelleth only by faith in the elect, and such as shall be saved, Ephes. 3.17. Augustine, unusquisque inspiciat se intus, appendat se, probet se in omnibus factis suis: fides, quae operatur per dilectionem, si in vobis est, iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos: Let every man look into himself, examine, prove himself: if faith working by love be in you, even now ye do belong to the number and company of the predestinate: Ergo, by a lively faith men may be assured of their election. THE SECOND PART, OF THE DIVERS kinds of faith. The Papists. error 78 1. THere is a kind of faith, called fides implicita, the faith of simple men and idiots: who although they are not able to give a reason of their belief, yet it is enough for them to say they are Catholic men, & that they will live and die in that faith which the Catholic Church doth teach, Rhemist. Luk. 12. sect. 3. This implicit faith, which, they say, is sufficient for common Catholics, is nothing else but to believe as the Church believeth, though they know nothing themselves particularly. The Protestants. AS before they spoiled faith of the better part thereof, which is a stable and certain persuasion of the heart: so now also they rob it of the other part, which is an evidence and light of spiritual knowledge: for faith cannot stand with ignorance, but necessarily bringeth with it an illumination of the mind, as it worketh stableness in the heart. Argum. Wherefore it is not enough for a Christian to say, he believeth as the Catholic Church believeth: for we must be ready to give account to every one that asketh of that hope that is in us, 1. Pet. 3.15. Ergo, every true Christian must be able to give account of his belief. Augustine writeth, Ita apud omnes vulgatam & confirmatam esse catholicam fidem, Cont. juli. lib. 6. cap. 4. ut nec notitiam possit fugere popularem: That the Catholic faith was so common, and so plain, that it could not be hid even unto the popular sort. For now in these days the prophecy of jeremy ought to be fulfilled, They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, Hebr. 8.11. The Papists. error 79 2. THey affirm, that the faith of miracles, spoken of 1. Corinth. 12.9. is of the same substance with the common justifying faith: it differeth only in an accidental quality of more fervour, devotion and confident trust, Rhemist. ibid. Yea, that faith which Saint james calleth a dead faith, is notwithstanding a true faith, and the same which is called the Catholic faith, and which the Apostle defineth, Hebr. 11. and in substance all one with that which justifieth, Rhemist. jam. 2. sect. 11. The Protestants. FIrst, the faith of miracles, and the justifying faith, are not all of one nature: because the faith of miracles may be in wicked men, Matth. 7.23. The justifying faith can be in none but those that shall be saved, Mark. 16.16. They that believe shall be saved. But what intolerable boldness is this, to ascribe greater confidence and trust to that faith, which may be in wicked men, then to the true justifying faith in the elect? Secondly, the dead faith, that Saint james treateth of, is not of the same nature with the justifying faith, nor that faith which is handled, Heb. 11. For by that faith the patriarchs pleased GOD, and believed that he was a rewarder of those which sought him, verse 6. But this dead faith hath no such operation. Again, it is great blasphemy, to make this dead faith, and a lively justifying faith, of one and the same kind and nature: for as a dead man cannot be said properly to be a man, no more can a dead faith be properly called a faith. Nay further, the faith of devils and the faith of Saints cannot be of one nature and substance: but this dead speculative faith may be in devils, jam. 2.19. Ergo, it is a blasphemous assertion, that these two faiths are all of one. Augustine saith, Discern fidem tuam a fide daemonum: daemons credunt, De verb. Apost. ser. 16. quod oderunt; distinguit Apostolus fides, quae operatur per dilectionem: Discern thy faith from the faith of devils; the devils believe that which they hate. The Apostle doth distinguish them: faith which worketh by love. Ergo, a dead faith which is fruitless, and worketh not by love, is the faith of devils, and so not of one nature with a true justifying faith. THE THIRD PART, WHEther charity be the form of justifying faith. The Papists. IT is so affirmed by our Rhemists, jam. 2. sect. 11. Faith being form, error 80 and made alive by charity, justifieth. Love is not as the instrument whereby faith worketh, but as the proper form, Tapper. ex Tileman. Heshus. de fide ere. 7. Argum. Saint james saith, As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead, 2.26. But the soul or spirit giveth the form and life to the body. Ergo, so do the works of charity to faith, Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. WE must consider of what kind of faith Saint james speaketh: not of a lively or justifying faith, but of a dead faith, which in deed is no faith, neither can possibly receive any life or quickening, to be made a true and right faith. The words than are thus to be read, and distinguished: So faith without works is dead: that is, this kind of faith, which neither worketh, nor ever shall: Not thus, Faith is dead without works: as though a true faith were quickened by works. But even as the body is dead, having neither soul, nor the operations thereof, life, motion, sense: so this vain speculative kind of faith is dead, both wanting the spirit and soul, that is, having not one spark of true faith, neither the operations and fruits thereof, which a lively faith showeth by love, as the soul worketh life and motion in the body: for a lively faith can never be without works: And a dead faith will never have works, but remaineth dead for ever. We must not therefore think, that it is one and the same faith, which sometime is dead without works, and again is made alive and quickened, when works come: But we must understand two kinds of faith: one altogether void of good works, which is only a faith in name, and a very dead faith. Another is a lively faith, always working: and this can never become a dead faith, so neither can the other be ever made a lively faith. Argum. That charity is not the form or any cause of faith, but the effect rather and fruit thereof, we do learn out of the word of God: Christ saith, john 3.18. He that believeth, shall not be condemned, but is already passed from death to life, john. 5.24. Faith than is able to save us, and alone justifieth us before God without love (which always followeth a true faith▪ but is not joined, or made a partner with it in the matter of justification) But faith could do nothing without the form thereof: Ergo, charity is not the form of faith. Saint Paul also faith: Faith which worketh by love, Galath. 5.6. The being and substance of faith is one thing, the working another: Love only concurreth with faith in the working, it is no part of the essence or being of faith. In Psal. 67. August. Ea sola bona opera dicenda sunt, quae fiunt per dilectionem, haec necesse est, antecedat fides, ut inde ista, non ab istis incipiat illa: Those only are to be counted good works, which are wrought by love: faith of necessity must go before: for they must take their beginning from faith, and not faith from them. Faith than goeth before love that worketh, therefore love is not the form of faith: for forma prior est re formata, the form should go before the thing form. THE FOURTH PART, HOW MEN are justified by faith. The Papists. We are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning, error 81 foundation, and the root of justification, Concil. Triden. sess. 6. cap. 8. Faith then by their sentence doth not fully justify the believer, but is the beginning, way and preparation only to justification, Andrad. ex Tilem. de fide ere. 11. Rhemist. Rom. 3. sect. 3. The Protestants. FAith is not the beginning only of our justification, but the principal and only worker thereof: neither are we justified in part or in whole by any other means then by faith. Argum. He that is at peace with God, is fully and perfectly justified, his conscience cleared, and his sins remitted. But by faith we have peace of conscience: Ergo, by faith we are fully and perfectly justified, Rom. 5.1. The Scripture also faith, The just man shall live by faith, Rom. 1.17. But we live not by justification begun only, but perfited and finished: Ergo, our full justification is by faith. Augustine upon these words, john 6.29. This is the work of God, that ye believe etc. Si justitia est opus Dei, quomodo erit opus Dei ut credatur in eum, nisi ipsa sit justitia, ut credamus in eum? If justice or righteousness be the work of God, how is it the work of God to believe in him, unless it be righteousness itself to believe in him? See then, it is not initium justitiae credere, sed ipsa justitia: it is not the beginning of justice to believe, but justice and righteousness itself. THE FIFT PART, WHETHER faith be meritorious. The Papists. BY faith we do merit eternal life, Catechis. Roman. p. 121. ex Tilemann. de error 82 fide. ere. 20. Rhemists' also ascribe meriting to faith, Rom. 3. sect. 3. Argum. Faith is a work: Ergo, if we be justified by faith, we are justified by works, and so consequently by merit. The Protestants. Ans. FAith in deed is a work, but not any of our own works: it is called the work of God, john. 6.29. God doth wholly work it in us: Ergo, we cannot merit by it. Argum. Saint Paul saith, Ephes. 2.8. By grace are you saved through faith, not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast himself. Faith than is no meritorious cause of our justification, but only an instrumental means, whereby we do apprehend the grace of God offered in Christ: God giveth both faith and the end of faith. Vtrumque Dei est, (as Augustine saith) & quod jubet, Lib. 1. de praedestinat. 11. & quod offertur: Believe and thou shalt be saved: both come of God▪ the thing commanded, that is faith, and the thing offered, namely salvation, Ergo, all is of grace. THE sixth PART, WHETHER to believe be in man's power. The Papists. RHemist. Act. 13. sect. 2. give this note, that the Gentiles believed by their error 83 own free will, though principally by God's grace: therefore, to believe, partly consisteth in man's free will, though not altogether: this is their opinion. The Protestants. FAith is the mere gift of God, Ephes. 2.8. and wholly cometh from God: it is not either in part or whole of ourselves. Argum. Rom. 11.36. Of him, through him, and for him are all things. Ergo fidei initium ex ipso, neque hoc excepto ex ipso sunt caetera: Therefore saith Augustine, the beginning of our faith is of him; unless we will say, that all things else are of God, this only excepted. And afterward he showeth, that our faith is wholly of God, not part of him, part of ourselves. Sic enim homo, quasi componet cum Deo, ut partem fidei sibi vendicet, partem Deo relinquat. So man shall as it were compound with God, to challenge part of faith to himself, and leave part for God. THE SEVENTH PART, WHEther faith may be lost. The Papists. error 84 A Man may fall away from the faith, which once truly he had: as Saint Paul saith of some, They had made shipwreck of faith, 1. Timoth. 1.19. Rhemist. ibid. Ergo, true faith may be lost. The Protestants. Ans. THe Apostle saith, Some having put away a good conscience, made shipwreck of faith. Such a faith in deed, that hath not a good conscience, may be lost: for it is not a true lively faith, but a dead fruitless faith. Argum. But he that once hath received a true lively faith, and is thereby justified before God, can never fall away, neither can that faith utterly perish or fail in him: for He that believeth, is already passed from death to life, john. 5.24. If then it be possible for a man to be brought from life to death, from heaven back again to hell, then may a faithful believer become also a faithless infidel. Augustine doth plainly set down his sentence of this matter: De corrept. & great. ca 7. Horum fides, quae per dilectionem operatur, profectò aut omnino non deficit, aut siqui sunt, quorum deficit, reparatur antequam vita ista finiatur. Their faith, which worketh by love, either never faileth at all, or if it do fail in any, it is repaired again, before their life be ended. THE EIGHT PART, WHETHER wicked men may have a true faith. The Papists. THe certainty of remission of sins, with a sure confidence and trust in Christ, error 85 may be found even amongst schismatics, heretics, and wicked men, Conc. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 9 The Protestants. IT is impossible, that a true lively faith, whereby we are justified before God, which worketh in us a sure confidence and trust in God, should enter into the heart of a wicked man. Argum. Christ saith, He that believeth in me, shall never thirst, john 6.35. And verse 40. This is the will of God, that he that believeth in me, should have eternal life: Ergo, if wicked men and reprobates may have this faith; they also shall have everlasting life: which is a thing impossible. Augustine, Nostra fides i catholica fides, justos ab iniustis, non operum, Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag. li. 3.5. sed ipsa fidei lege discernit, quia justus ex fide vivet. The Catholic faith discerneth just men from unjust, not by works, but by the law of faith: for the just shall live by faith. If then the difference between the godly and wicked be only faith, if the one may have faith as well as the other, there should be no difference between them. THE THIRD QUESTION, OF good works. THe parts of this question: first, what works are to be counted good works: secondly, whether there are any good works without faith: thirdly, of the use and office of good works, whether they be applicatory, expiatory, meritorious: four, of the distinction of merits: fifthly, the manner of meriting. THE FIRST PART, WHICH BE the good works of Christians. The Papists. THey do not only call them good works, which are commanded of God, error 86 but which are also enjoined by the Church and the governors thereof; and that even by such works men are justified, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 10. Tapper. ex Tileman. loc. 11. Err. 1. The Protestants. SAint Paul defineth good works otherwise, namely those which God hath ordained, that we should walk in them, Ephes. 2.10. They are not the precepts of men, but the commandments of God in his word, the doing whereof hath the name of good works. As for the traditions and injunctions of men not warranted by God's word, they are so far from being commended or commanded, that our Saviour calleth the doing thereof, but a Worshipping of God in vain, Mark. 7.7. Augustine upon those words, in the 103. Psalm vers. 18. The loving kindness of the Lord is upon those that keep his covenant, and think upon his commandments to do them, saith thus: Vide ut praecepta teneas: sed quomodo teneas? non memoria, sed vita: Memoria retinentibus mandata eius, non ut reddant ea, sed ut faciant ea: See that thou keep Gods commandments: but how? not in thy memory, but in thy life, not to say them by rote, but to do them. Ergo, they are Gods commandments, which we must think of to do them; for unto such the blessing is promised, not to the observers of men's precepts or traditions. THE SECOND PART, WHEther there be any good works without faith. The Papists. THough they dare not altogether justify the works of the heathen and infidels, error 87 yet they do excuse them, and do blame us for saying, that infidels do sin in honouring their parents, in fight for their Country, and such like. They therefore do discharge the heathen of sin, in these works of theirs, Rhemist. Rom. 14. sect. 4. The Protestants. THese works are not sin in themselves, but in infidels they are, because they proceed of infidelity. Argum. It is the rule of the Gospel, that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, Matth. 7.18. But all infidels are corrupt trees, being without faith. Ergo, they can bring forth no good fruit. The Pelagians thought to have posed Augustine with the same question, which the papists propound to us. Was it sin in the heathen (say they) to cloth the naked? Augustine answereth, Non per seipsum factum peccatum est, Cont. julian. lib. 4. c. 3. sed de tali opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatum. The fact of itself is not sin, but in doing any such thing not to rejoice in the Lord, none but wicked men will deny it to be sin. THE THIRD PART, OF THE use and office of good works. THey make a threefold use of good works, as they call them: first, by them the merits of Christ, they say, are applied unto us: secondly, they do purge our sins: thirdly, they are meritorious. THE FIRST ARTICLE, WHEther bona opera be applicatoria. The Papists. BY any work proceeding of faith and charity, the merit of Christ's passion error 88 is applied to us, Soto. ex Tilemann. loc. 11. ere. 21. Men by their sufferings and other works, may apply to themselves the general medicine of Christ's merits and satisfaction, Rhemist. annot. 1. Coloss. sect. 4. The Protestants. IT is the property of faith only, to apprehend, and apply unto us the benefits of Christ's passion, and all other his merits. Argum. Rom. 10.7.8. We need not, saith the Apostle, to ascend to heaven, or descend into the deep, to bring Christ from thence: it is the word of faith, which we preach. By faith then we do scale the heavens, and behold Christ: it is not the doctrine of works, but the word of faith that performeth this. And therefore the Apostle defineth faith, to be the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. This definition cannot agree unto works, or unto any other thing but faith: for than it were no good definition, nor yet description. Ergo, faith only is the evidence of things invisible: and therefore only apply Christ's precious merits, which are things believed and not seen. Augustine thus also describeth faith: Rerum absentium praesens est fides, rerum, De Trin. li. 13. ca 1. quae foris sunt, intus est fides, rerum, quae non videntur, videtur fides: Faith maketh things absent, present, things without us, to be within us, things not seen to be seen: Ergo, faith only hath this applicatory power, to apply Christ's merits not present, nor seen, and to make them as our own. THE SECOND ARTICLE, WHEther bona opera be expiatoria. The Papists. THe works of charity and mercy, as alms deeds, and such like, have error 89 force to extinguish our sins, as Saint Peter saith, Charity doth cover a multitude of sins, Epist. 1.4.8. Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. THe Apostle speaketh of mutual charity amongst ourselves, whose property is to cover a multitude of our neighbour's offences, as Solomon saith, Prou. 10.11. Hatred stirreth up contentions, but love covereth trespasses: what is this to the extinguishing of our sins before God? Argum. It is an abominable and blasphemous opinion, that any man by his works should be able to redeem his sins: for the Scripture saith, that by himself Christ hath purged our sins, Heb. 1.3. If he have wholly done it by himself, he hath not given this power and force of redemption to any other means. If they understand by the force of extinguishing sins, the means only of applying Christ's merits: in that sense, faith only is said to save us, Ephes. 2.8. Augustine: Si merita nostra aliquid facerent, ad damnationem nostram veniret, sed non venit ad inspectionem meritorum, sed remissionem peccatorum. If our merits were available to any purpose, God should come to our condemnation: but he cometh not to behold our merits, but to forgive us our sins. Ergo, by our merits, our sins are not forgiven. THE THIRD ARTICLE, WHEther our works be meritorious. The Papists. error 90 GOD giveth as well everlasting life and glory to men, for and according to their works, as he giveth damnation for the contrary works, Rhemist. Rom. 2. sect. 2. And men by their works proceeding of grace do deserve or merit heaven, and the more or less joy in the same, 1. Corinth. 3. sect. 2. Argum. 1. He will render to every man according to his works, Rom. 2.6. Every man shall receive his reward according to his labour. Here we see the kingdom of heaven is a retribution, hire, wages for works: Ergo, our works are the value, price, worth and merit of the same. Rhemist. Answ. Our labours and works are a measure of the reward, according to the which God doth meet out and render unto his Saints of the heavenly reward▪ but they are no meritorious or deserving cause thereof. The reward is of mercy, not of desert; of grace, not of merit: for life eternal is the mere gift of God through jesus Christ, Rom. 6.23. But the wages of sin is death. Where the Apostle doth set a manifest difference between the reward of the righteous, and the just recompense of the wicked: for life eternal is the free and gracious gift of God, not deserved: but eternal damnation is the due debt of sin. Wherefore the Papists do bid open battle to the Apostle, in saying, that the one is as due by debt as the other. Argum. 2. Saint Paul saith, 2. Timoth▪ 4.8. that there is a crown of righteousness laid up for him, which God the just judge shall give him. Ergo, the crown is given not of mercy, but of justice, as a wages and just recompense to the Apostle. Answ. God rendereth heaven as a just judge, not to the merit and worthiness of our works, but to the merit and worthiness of Christ, and as due to us by his promise made to us in Christ. The reward therefore of heaven is of the mercy of God, who hath freely promised it us in Christ: It is of his justice, in that he is faithful and just in keeping of his promise made to us. So that it is a debt, not in respect of any desert in us, but in regard of his own promise. As Augustine saith: Debitorem ipse se dominus fecit, non accipiendo, sed promittendo: Non ei dicitur red, quod accepisti, sed red, quod promisisti. God hath made himself a debtor, by promising, not by receiving any thing at our hands: We say not to him, render that thou hast received, but give that which thou hast promised, in Psalm. 83. The Protestants. WE confess a necessary use of good works: As first, they do serve as notable means and instruments to set forth God's glory by, Math. 5.16. Secondly, by them also our faith is showed, published and made known, for the good example of others, jam. 2.18. Thirdly, our own conscience also is thereby quieted, and our election daily made more sure unto us: we do grow and increase in the certainty and assurance thereof, 1. Pet. 1.10. But we acknowledge no power, force, or efficacy at all in them to deserve and merit any thing at the hands of God, neither doth the scripture in any place so speak. Argum. 1. If man consider his deserts, he shall find, that he is worthy of nothing but death: To us (s●yth the Prophet) belongeth shame, Dan. 9.9. There is nothing else by debt due unto us: as Augustine also saith, Nihil praecesserat in meritis nostris▪ nisi unde damnari deberemus: In Psa. 18. exposit. 2. Nothing goeth before in our merits, but that whereby we ought justly to be condemned. And again, Omne peccatum nostrae est negligentiae, omnis virtus & sanctitas est Dei indulgentiae: All evil and sin in us, is of our own negligence, all goodness and holiness, of the free mercy of God. In Math. serm. 8. Si misericordiae domini multae, multus egò in meritis: If the mercies of God be many, my merits are many. God's mercies are our merits: our due debts are nothing else but punishment for sin. Argum. 2. Between the desert or merit, and the wages or recompense, there ought always to be some proportion: a like stipend for a like labour: But heaven without comparison exceedeth the worthiness of our works, Ergo, it is not given as a debt, but as a free gift: therefore the Apostle saith, that the afflictions that are present, are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, Rom. 8.18. Homil. 8. Augustine saith, Quàm parvo constat regnum coelorum? duob. minutis emit vidua regnum coelorum: How little doth the kingdom of God stand us in? a certain widow for two mites bought the kingdom of heaven. Shall we think that the widows casting in of two mites deserved the kingdom of heaven? far be it from us so to think: it is then a gift of ●auour and mercy, not wages of debt. Argum. 3. Saint Paul saith, Faith is counted to him for righteousness, that worketh not, Rom. 4.5. If it be of grace, it is no more of works, for then grace were no more grace: If of work, than not of grace; for then work were no more work, Rom. 11.9 We see that the righteousness of faith or of grace, and the righteousness of works, cannot stand together, nor be matched one with the other. Our adversaries have here two evasions: First they grant, that the beginning of our justification, which they call the first justification, is merely of God's grace, neither can we have any acceptable works before we are justified: but in the second justification, which is the increase of the former justice, a man may merit by good works, Rhemist. Rom. 2.3. Ans. This is but a late and new device of the first and second justification: as afterward we will show in the proper place. The scripture teacheth us, that not only the beginning of our righteousness, but the finishing and perfiting of it is only by grace in Christ, Ephes. 2.5.6. When we were dead in our sins, he hath quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace ye are saved, and hath raised us up, and made us sit together in heavenly places: We see that this salvation by grace bringeth us up to heaven. Ergo, both the first & second justification are of grace, for they can bring us no further then to heaven. Rhemist. 2. Works done of nature without, or before faith, cannot merit, but works done by God's grace may, and are joined with it as causes of salvation. Ans. Not only the works of nature, but even of grace also are excluded. We are saved (saith the Apostle) by grace through faith; not of works: And then he showeth what works, namely good works, such as the Lord hath ordained for us to walk in, Ephes. 2.9.10. Ergo, works also of grace, wrought in us by the spirit of God, are shut out from being any causes of our salvation. I conclude with Augustine, upon those words of the Psalm, Let the Lord always be magnified: Peccatores? magnificetur, ut vocet: consiteris? magnificetur, ut ignoscat: iam justè vivis? magnificetur, ut regat: perseveras usque ad finem? magnificetur, ut te glorificet: Art thou a sinner? let God be magnified in calling thee: dost thou confess thy sins? let him be magnified in forgiving them: dost thou live well? let him be magnified in directing thee: dost thou continue to the end? let him be magnified in glorifying thee. God is as much to be praised for all things wrought after our cal●ing and conversion, as for mercy showed before: All than is wholly to be ascribed to God's grace and mercy: nothing is left for our merit or desert. THE FOURTH PART, OF THE distinction of merits. The Papists. THey make two kinds of merit: Meritum de co●gruo, merit of congruity: error 91 such are the preparative works before justification, as were the prayers & alms deeds of Cornelius, Act. 10. which though they be not simply meritorious, ex debito justitiae, by the due debt of justice, yet they deserve at God's hands of congruity, because he doth graciously accept them, Act. 10. sect. 5. The other kind, they call meritum de condigno, merit of condignity, when the reward is justly due by debt: such are the works done in the second justification, which are truly meritorious, Ex Tilem. loc. 11. error 22. and worthy of heaven, Gabriel. Biel. Rhemist. Rom. 2. sect. 3. The Protestants. FIrst, we utterly deny any such merit of condignity: For Saint Paul saith, that the afflictions of this life are not condign of the glory to come, Rom. 8.18. Condignity then is wholly removed and taken away. Secondly, a reward of congruity in some sort we grant, but neither for any thing done before faith or justification, for it is impossible without faith to please God, or do any thing acceptable unto him, Hebr. 6.6. Neither is it of congruity for the merit of our works: but it is (congruum) it is agreeable to the mercy and justice of God in respect of his promise graciously made in Christ, to reward the faithful obedience of his servants: so than the congruity is on God's behalf, not in respect of our works. We are justified, saith the Apostle, Gratis per gratiam, freely by grace, Rom. 3.24. Ergo, there is no merit either of congruity or condignity, seeing all is done freely. Augustine saith, Quid ille latro attulerat de fauce ad judicium, de judicio ad crucem, In Psa. 55. de cruse in Paradisum? I pray you what merit did the thief bring with him, from the prison to judgement, from the judgement place to the cross, from the cross to Paradise? Here was neither merit of congruity nor condignity. THE FIFT PART, OF THE MANner of meriting. The Papists. Our works (they say) are pleasing and acceptable unto God▪ even after error 92 the same manner, that Christ and his works were, Tapper. ex Tileman. loc. 11. Err. 14. Christ's pains of their own nature, compared to his glory, were not any whit comparable, yet they were meritorious and worthy of heaven, not for the greatness of them, but for the worthiness of his person. So our works, not of their own nature, but as they are of grace, are meritorious of the joys of heaven, Rhemist. Rom. 8.18. The Protestants. FIrst, it is a great blasphemy, to say, that Christ's passions in themselves deserved not that glory, which he hath purchased for us: neither that there was any comparison between them: for then, how could he have fully satisfied the wrath of God? Christ hath paid the ransom for our sins: We are redeemed with his precious blood, as of a lamb unspotted, 1. Pet. 1.19. His blood was the price of our redemption: therefore, of itself meritorious: It was not in respect of Christ, of grace; but of merit in him: Unto us his redemption is of grace, Rom. 3.24. Wherefore his passion being the passion of the Son of God, was a full satisfaction, and worthy desert of that glory, which he hath purchased for us. Secondly; it is another great blasphemy to match and compare in the way and manner of meriting, Christ's works and ours together. For first, there is no merit at all in us unto salvation: we have no merits but Christ's, and are saved only by faith in him, not by works, Ephes. 2.8. Secondly, by your own confession, our works are not of their nature meritorious, but of grace. But Christ's works were of themselves full of merit, without any external help, or accession of grace: for in himself did all fullness dwell, Coloss. 1.19. Augustine very well showeth the great difference in the way of meriting between Christ and us, Tract. 2. in Epist. johan. thus writing: Quantum interest, cum duo sint in carcere, interreum, & visitatorem eius: illum causa premit, illum humanitas adduxit: sic in istu mortalitate nos reatu tenebamur, Christus misericordia descendit: Look what difference there is, when two are in prison together, between the prisoner, and his friend that cometh to visit him; the one is there of necessity, the other cometh of good will. Such difference is there between Christ & us: for when we were detained in the prison of this mortality, for the guilt of our sins, Christ came in mercy to visit us. How can there now be any proportionable or like way of meriting, in the guilty prisoner, and the innocent and friendly visitor? THE FOURTH QUESTION, of justification. THe parts of this question. First, of the preparative works to justification. Secondly, of the 2. kinds of justification, the first & second. Thirdly, of inherent justice. Fourthly, of justification only by faith. They follow now in order. THE FIRST PART, OF THE Preparative works. The Papists. Works done before justification, though they suffice not to salvation, error 93 yet be acceptable preparatives to the grace of justification, and such as move God to mercy: As were the alms deeds and prayer in Cornelius, Act. 10. sect. 5. Rhemist. The Protestants. Ans. COrnelius prayers and alms were not without faith, as Augustine confesseth: Non sine aliqua fide donabat, & orabat: De praedestinat. lib. 1. ca 7 He did not give alms & pray without some faith. And he proveth it by that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 10.14. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Seeing then Cornelius had faith, his justification also was begun: for so soon as faith cometh, it justifieth. These were not then works preparative to faith and justification, but the fruits of his faith and justification begun. Argum. Before faith come, there can be no works of preparation acceptable to God: because Without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebr. 11.6. Augustine also saith: Ea ipsa opera ante fidem, In Psal. 31. quae videntur hominibus laudabilia, inania sunt: those very works which seem to be commendable before faith, are altogether vain and unprofitable. If they be vain, they are no preparations to faith. THE SECOND PART, OF THE two kinds of justification. The Papists. error 94 THere is a first justification, which is merely of grace without works: as when an Infidel is made just, who had no acceptable works before to be justified by. The second justification is that, wherein he that is in God's grace daily proceedeth in by good works, Rhemist. Rom. 2.3. This justification and sanctification are all one, Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 7. And it is augmented and increased by the merit of work, sess. 6. can. 24. Argum. Of the first justification S. Paul speaketh, where he saith, We are justified by faith without works, Rom 3.28. Of the second Saint james entreateth: A man is justified by works, and not of faith only, 2.24. Rhemist. Ans. This your device of first and second justification, is but a new device, not yet 60. year old: your second justification is nothing else, but the effect & fruits of justification before God, and a declaration, that we are just before men. Saint Paul and Saint james do speak of one and the same justification by faith: But they take the word diversly, for Saint james by justifying meaneth nothing else, but a testifiyng or declaration of our justification before men: And in this sense is the word taken, Math. 11.19. Wisdom is justified of her children, that is, declared to be just. The Protestants. FIrst, justification and sanctification are two divers things: We are justified by faith only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, Roman. 4.7. We are sanctified, when by faith working by love we walk in newness of life. These two are perpetually distinguished in the scriptures, I mean justification, and sanctification, 1. Corinth. 1.30. & 6.11. and Galath. 5.25. If we live in the spirit, let us walk in the spirit. Our justification is the living in the spirit, our sanctification the walking in the spirit. Secondly, our works can be no cause of the increase of our justification, and the grace of God in us: But both our justification and sanctification are the free gifts of God: For what hast thou, that thou hast not received? 1. Corint. 4.7. This was the old Pelagian heresy, that the grace of God is given according to our works: Lib. 1. de praedest. cap. 1. confuted by Augustine, Epistol. 106. Gratia iam non erit gratia, quia secundum merita datur, nam merces fidei auctae erit merces coeptae: Thus grace shallbe no grace: for it is given according to merit: for the increase of faith or justice, is made the hire or wages of faith, that is begun. Thirdly, the scripture speaketh but of one justification, which glorification followeth, Rom. 8.30. Whom he justified, them also he glorified: unless you will have another justification to come after our glorification. Likewise, Rom. 4. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, ver. 7. The justification in remission of sins doth make a man blessed: Ergo, it is the only sufficient justification. And Augustine accordingly saith, In Psal. 100 Donando delicta fecit se debitorem coronae: by forgiving our sins he hath made himself a debtor for the crown or reward. We see heaven is promised at the first remission of our sins: what need then any other justification? Wherefore it is a false and blasphemous decree in the Council of Trent, that we are not justified only by remission of our sins, sess. 6. can. 11. THE THIRD PART, OF inherent justice. The Papists. THey teach, that men are not justified by the only imputation of the righteousness error 95 of Christ, Trid. Concil. sess. 6. can. 11. Neither that we are formally made just by the righteousness of Christ, can. 10. but by justice inherent in us, whereby we are not only reputed and accounted just, but are truly called just, and are so indeed, sess. 6. cap. 7. Rhemist. Rom. cap. 2. sect. 4. Argum. Rom. 2.13. Not the hearers of the law, but the doers are justified: Ergo, we are justified by an inherent justice, Rhemist. Ans. 1. Saint Paul speaketh of the justification of the law, and proveth by this argument, that none could be justified by the law, because none were able to do it: And without performing of the law there was no justification by the law: what is this to the justification of faith? 2. But if we will understand it of the true justification of Christians: it must so be taken, as August. saith, Non ut factorib. justificatio accedat, sed factores legis justificatio praecedat: De spirit. & litter. cap. 26. not that justification doth come to the doers, but that it goeth before the doers of the law. The Protestants. WE acknowledge an inherent justice in all faithful men & believers: but it is imperfect, not able to justify them before God: it is no other than sanctification, which is a fruit of justification. But that justice, whereby we are just before God, not falsely accounted, but made truly just by God, is by the righteousness of Christ only, which we apprehend by faith. Argum. That justice, whereby we have peace with God, is the only justice, whereby we are justified before God: for until we are cleared and made just before God, it is impossible to have peace with him. But this is only the justice of faith, Rom. 5.1. Ergo, by this justice only are we just before God. August. hath a good speech, Si dixerimus, quod nihil justitiae habemus, De verbis. apost. ser. 16. adversum Dei dona mentimur: si enim justitiae nihil habemus, nec fidem habemus: si autem fidem habemus, iam aliquid habemus justitiae: If we say we have no justice at all in us, we do belie the good gifts of God: for if we have no justice, we have no faith: But if we have faith, then have we some justice in us. Here Augustine acknowledgeth no inherent justice, but only the justice of faith: THE FOURTH PART, OF Justification only by faith. The Papists. error 94 Faith is not the only cause of our justification, but there are other also, as hope, charity, alms deeds, and other virtues: Rhemist. Roman. 8. sect. 6. Yea, works are more principal than faith, in the matter of justification, jam. 2. sect. 7. Whosoever therefore saith, that a man is justified only by faith, and that nothing else is required to justification, we pronounce him accursed, Trident. Concil. sess. 6. can. 9 Argum. 1. Rom. 8.24. We are saved by hope: Ergo, not only by faith, Rhemist. Answ. 1. We are said to be saved by hope, not because we are thereby justified, but because by hope we do expect and wait for our salvation, which is not yet accomplished: as it followeth, vers. 25. If we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience abide for it. Argum. 2. Galath. 5.6. faith, that worketh by charity. faith then hath her whole activity and operation toward salvation of charity: It doth not therefore justify us alone, but faith and charity together, of the which charity is the more principal, Rhemist. ibid. Answ. We grant, that it is a working faith that doth justify, as the Apostle here saith: but not as it worketh, but as it apprehendeth and believeth. Charity is a principal effect of faith, and followeth it: how then can faith receive activity from charity? the effect doth not give life to the cause. You know Augustine often saith, Opera non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum: Works go not before unto justification, but follow in him that is already justified. But if charity should beget faith, then works proceeding of charity, should go before faith by the which we are justified. The Apostle saith, Without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebr. 11.6. Ergo, neither doth charity please God without faith: Faith giveth activity to charity; how then can it receive that which it giveth? Argum. 3. jam. 2.24. We see how that of deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only: Ergo, we are not justified by faith only, Rhemist. Answ. Saint james is not contrary to his fellow Apostle Saint Paul, who concludeth, Rom. 3.28. that We are justified by faith without works: that is as much to say, as by faith only. And he excludeth not only works of nature, or of the law: but even works of grace, which God hath ordained, Ephes. 2.10. Therefore S. james, in saying we are not justified by faith only, meaneth not that justification, whereby we are made just before God: for than he should impugn Saint Paul's principles. But by justifying, or being justified, he understandeth nothing else but to be declared just, as well before men as in the sight of God: which declaration is testified and showed forth by our works proceeding of faith. Thus the word justified is taken, Rom. 3.4. That thou mayst be justified in thy words: that is, known or declared to be just. Augustine also saith, justificabuntur, id est, justi habebuntur: They shall be justified, that is, De spiritu & lite●● 26 counted just: as we also say, Sanctificetur nomen, id est, sanctum habeatur: Let thy name be sanctified, that is, reputed and acknowledged to be holy amongst men. The Protestants. WE are not enemies to good works (as our adversaries falsely charge us:) nay we preach good works, we exhort to good works, we establish good works, teaching the right use of them out of the word of God: which is not to concur, or be joined with faith in our justification, but to follow necessarily and issue out of faith, as lively testimonies thereof, to the glory of God, the example of others, and our comfort: but faith it is only, which, as a lively instrument ordained of God, doth assure us of our justification by grace in Christ. Argum. 1. Salvation is ascribed only to belief, Mark. 16.16. Act. 16.31. But it is the property of faith only to believe, not of hope or charity: the effect of hope is by patience to abide, Rom. 8.25. The operations also of love are set forth, 1. Corinth. 13. Where amongst other, Love is said to believe all things: that is, mutual love amongst men is not mistrustful, but taketh all things in good part: but to believe the things of God, it is the property only of faith: as Augustine upon those words of the Apostle, How shall they call upon him▪ on whom they have not believed? In his duobus tria illa intuere: fides credit, spes & charitas orant: In these two behold those three: faith believeth, Enchirid. cap. 7. hope and charity pray. Faith therefore only believeth, and so consequently only justifieth, Enchirid. cap. 7. Argum. 2. Our justification and salvation is of the mere grace and mercy of God, not at all of any merit or desert in us: Ergo, we are justified only through faith: for it is of grace that we are saved through faith, Ephes. 2.8. That all is to be ascribed only to the mercy and grace of God, the Apostle every where showeth: Rom. 9.12. It is not in him that willeth or runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. We are justified freely by grace, Rom. 3.24. What hast thou that thou hast not received? Augustine saith, Intelligenda est gratia Dei per jesum Christum dominum nostrum, qua sola liberamur à malo: De corrept. & great. c. 2. We must understand the grace of God by jesus Christ, by the which we are only delivered from evil. Si quid boni est, magni, vel parvi, donum tuum est, nostrum non est nisi malum: si quid boni unquam habui, à te recepi: If there be any good in us, much or little, it is thy gift: nothing is ours but the evil in us: Ergo, all good things are of God, and only of his grace: and therefore our justification. Argum. 3. There are many evident places, which do attribute our justification to faith without works, Rom. 3.28.11.8. Ephes. 2.8.9. In all these places in plain terms, We are said to be justified by faith without works. As for those frivolous evasions, that the Apostle speaketh of the first justification, not of the second, or of the works of nature, or of the law, not of grace, we have answered before, Quaest 2. part. 3. artic. 3. If they will oppose that saying of S. james. 2.24. we answer with Augustine: In Psal. 31. Nec Apostoli sunt inter se adversi: ille dicit, Abrahae opus omnibus notum in filii immolatione: magnum opus, sed ex fide: laudo fructum boni operis, sed in fide agnosco radicem: The Apostles are not contrary one to the other: he saith, Abraham's work was known to all in offering up his son: a great work, but of faith: I praise the fruit, but it was rooted in faith. His meaning then is this, that Abraham was justified, that is, declared to men to be just by this work. HERE FOLLOW SUCH CONTROVERSIES AS do arise between the Protestants and Papists, about the natures of Christ. WE have now through God's gracious assistance entreated of all those questions, wherein we descent from our adversaries, both as touching all the offices of Christ, his prophetical office, kingdom and priesthood: as likewise concerning the benefits purchased by the death of Christ, the benefits of our redemption, and salvation. Now, in the last place we are to prosecute such matters in question between us, as do concern the natures of Christ. And this treatise containeth three controversies. First, of the human nature of Christ. Secondly, of his divine nature. Thirdly, of them both considered together. THE EIGHTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. THis Controversy is divided into these questions. First, of the ubiquity of the humanity of Christ. Secondly, whether he increased in wisdom. Thirdly, whether he suffered in soul. Fourthly, whether he descended into Hell. Fiftly, concerning the place of Hell. THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE VBIQVITIE OF the body of Christ, whether his humanity be every where. The Papists. THey do seem in words mightily to impugn this opinion of the Ubiquitaries, error 97 as they are called, which do erroneously hold, that the humanity of Christ is every where, as his deity is, and that the properties of one nature are really imparted unto the other: whereupon it followeth, that the humanity of Christ is every where, because it is verily united, and made one person with the Godhead in Christ. This opinion the Papists would be thought to detest and abhor: and the jesuite bestoweth great pains by sundry arguments to confute it: as by divers places of scripture, Math. 28. He is risen, he is not here, vers. 6. jesus said, Lazarus is dead, and I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, joh. 11.4. Ergo, Christ, as he is man, is not every where. Again, the opinion of the Ubiquitaries doth overthrow the article of Christ's ascension: for if Christ's body be every where, as they hold, he can neither ascend nor descend, Bellarm. de Incarnation. verbi. lib. 3. cap. 11.12. The Protestants. IT is true Catholic and sound doctrine, that the human and divine nature are truly united in Christ, and do make but one person, or hypostasis, neither by confusion of the natures, nor conversion of one into the other, but by unity of person: for as the body and soul make one man, so God and man is one Christ. And the better to understand this mystery, we must set down these three positions. 1. Though the two natures in Christ be so united, that they make but one person, yet neither the natures are confounded, nor yet the properties: but as Christ is both God and man, so there is in him a double power, will, and understanding, one human and created, the other divine and uncreated. 2. By reason of this union, all the excellent graces of the spirit in the highest degree, and above measure, are given and bestowed upon the humanity of Christ, joh. 3.34. but such notwithstanding, as destroy not his human nature, but are qualities created, as his humanity also was created. 3. There is also a mutual communication of the proprieties of both natures each to other, though not really in respect of the natures: So we say in Concreto, in the concrete, that is, taking the whole person of Christ, that Christus homo, that is, the man Christ is omnipotent, is every where: and Christus Deus, that is, Christ being God, died for us, was buried, rose again: but in the abstract it is great blasphemy to say; that the Godhead of Christ died, was buried, or rose again, or that the humanity of Christ is omnipotent, or in every place. The Ubiquitaries now hold, that there is a real communication of the proprieties of both natures: & therefore doubt not to say, that the flesh and body of Christ is every where in all places at once. The Papists in outward show are enemies to that opinion: but indeed, and in truth, as it shall now appear, they are not far off from being in the same error. First, the same arguments which they urge against the Ubiquitaries, do return upon themselves: for although they will not say, that Christ's body is every where, yet they hold that it may be in a thousand places at once, yea and more to, if the Sacrament be at once in so many places celebrated: for Christ's body is really and verily in the Sacrament. But those places alleged, He is risen, he is not here, and the rest, do prove that Christ can be but in one place at once. This their opinion also is against the article of Christ's ascension, and abiding in heaven till the day of judgement: for if the same body wherein Christ sitteth in heaven, be in the Sacrament; either when he is present in earth, he is absent in heaven, contrary to the scripture, Act. 3.21. which saith, The heavens must contain him till that all things be restored: or else, if he be in both places at once, they must needs make his body infinite, and so destroy the nature of his humanity, which can be but in one place. If they say it is another body and flesh, which Christ by his divine power maketh to be present in the Sacrament, that were much more absurd: for then Christ should have many bodies, and other flesh then that which was borne of the Virgin Mary. We see than they are not far off from the opinion of the Ubiquitaries. Annot. Apocal. 6. sect. 1. 2. The Rhemists do approve that argument, whereby Hierome proveth that the Saints may every where be present at their bodies & monuments: They follow the Lamb, whither soever he goeth: but the Lamb is in every place: therefore they that be with the Lamb Christ, be present every where. Whereupon it followeth, that the Lamb Christ in humanity must be every where: for how can he be present else in innumerable places at once, where any relics or monuments of Saints are? Neither can they excuse this ubiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ and the souls of Saints, by their agility and celerity: because they can quickly pass from one place to another: for if they must be present at their monuments, whensoever they are called upon, they must of necessity be often in many places at once: for in one and the same instant, men may resort to their monuments which are in divers places far asunder. Thus they are driven not only to grant an ubiquity or omnipresence of the humanity of Christ, but even of Saints also: which those whom they call Ubiquitaries would never grant. 3. The body of Christ is visible and palpable now in heaven, and hath a place according to the quantity of his body: Bellarmine confesseth as much, cap. 12. But that body which is in the Sacrament hath none of these properties, it is neither seen, nor felt, neither hath a place according to the quantity of a body, for they close it up in small round cakes. Wherefore destroying these properties of the humanity of Christ, they may as well, and do in effect, take away the other, namely, the being of Christ's body in one place: for it is as proper to the body of Christ to be seen and felt, as to be in one place at once. 4. Bellarmine granteth, being urged with that argument, that Christ's soul was in Paradise after his passion, and therefore not in hell: he confesseth, that it was not impossible that Christ's soul should be in two places at once, Lib. 4. de Christi anima. cap. 15. Yea he saith, that Christ may, if he will, turn all the world into bread, and the bread so made convert into his flesh; and so his body may be as well in every place of the world, as now it is in the Eucharist, Lib. 3. the incarnate cap. 11. What great odds now, I pray you, is there between the opinion of the Ubiquitaries and of the Papists? but that they say, that the body of Christ is every where ordinarily by the power of the Godhead: the other say, his flesh is in many places at once by a miracle. The one saith, Christ's body actually is in every place: the other, that it may be if Christ will. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER OUR SAVIOUR Christ did verily increase in knowledge and wisdom as he was man. The Papists. CHrist, they say, in the very first creation of his soul, and from his conception, error 98 was endued with the fullness of all wisdom, grace, and knowledge: neither can he be said properly to have increased in any of these gifts. 1. Christ was anointed from his mother's womb, and then the spirit of God was upon him: for the Angels that appeared to the shepherds call him Christ, Luk. 2.11. And john saith, The word was made flesh, full of grace and truth, 1. vers. 11. Therefore even then he had received all abundance of grace and knowledge, Bellarm. de Christi anima. lib. 4.2. Ans. 1. We grant, that our Saviour was the jesus & the Christ even from his nativity: not that then he actually straightways entered into those offices, or received plenary power of all the graces of the spirit, but because he was even from his mother's womb consecrated and appointed thereunto: for it no more followeth, because he is called Christ, that he then had his actual anointing, then, that because he was called jesus from his nativity, that he had actually performed our redemption. The full anointing of the spirit was fulfilled in his baptism, when the holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a Dove: and then beginning to preach, in his first sermon at Nazareth, he showeth the accomplishment of the prophecy of Esay, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, etc. Luk. 4.18. 2. Neither do the words of john import so much, as they gather. The word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us, full of grace and truth: which is not to be understood of the very first assuming of the flesh, but of the dwelling of the word in the flesh amongst us, and so appeared to be full of grace and truth. Argum. 2. Christ was the Son of God in his very incarnation, and even then was the humanity perfectly united to the Godhead: therefore immediately upon this union and conjunction of both natures in one person, must needs follow the fullness of grace in the human nature. Again, Adam was created in perfect wisdom, therefore much more the second Adam, Bellar. cap. 4. Ans. 1. If presently upon the uniting of the two natures together, it had been necessary that the human nature of Christ should have received whatsoever by the presence of the divine nature was to be conferred upon it: then Christ strait ways must also both in body and soul have been glorified: for it can not be denied, but that as the body of Christ after the resurrection received more glory than before: so also his soul being the other part of his humanity, was more glorified. By this it is evident, that the humanity received not at once the fullness of all grace and glory, in the first uniting of the Godhead. 2. Adam was created perfect in body and soul: and if Christ therefore ought to have the fullness of the gifts of the soul in his creation as Adam had, why ought he not also to have had a perfect body, as Adam was created withal? Wherefore as it was no dishonour to Christ to grow up in stature of body, so neither was it to increase in the gifts of the mind. The Protestants. THat Christ was even from his birth and first conception perfect God, and perfect man; we do assuredly believe, and that in the very incarnation, the divine and human nature were united together. Also we grant, that the Lord Christ might have created to himself a soul full of all wisdom and knowledge, as he might have made himself a perfect body: but seeing it pleased him to be borne of a woman, and first to dwell in the body of an infant, we doubt not to say, as the scripture teacheth us, that he also Increased in wisdom. 1. He was in all things like to his brethren, only sin excepted, Heb. 2.17.4.15. Ergo, he grew up and increased in knowledge, according to the manner of men, which may be done without sin. 2. The scripture saith plainly, which cannot lie, that jesus grew up and increased in wisdom and stature, Luk. 2.52. And lest they should answer, that this increasing was only in the opinion of men: it followeth, And in favour with God and men: he increased in wisdom, stature and favour, not only in show before men, but in truth before God: and as verily and indeed he grew up in stature, so also in wisdom. 3. Christ testifieth of himself, That neither the Angels nor the Son of man, as he is man, knoweth of the day or hour of his coming to judgement, but the father only, Mark. 13.31. Ergo, Christ as he was man had not at once all fullness of knowledge. Bellarmine thus expoundeth this place, Filius dicitur nescire, quia non sciebat ad dicendum alijs: The Son is said not to know, because he knew it, not to reveal it to others, but to keep it secret to himself. Ans. First, then by the same reason, the Angels do know it also: but that they are charged not to declare it to men: for the text saith, that neither the Angels, nor the Son of man knoweth the time. Secondly, in this sense also the father might be said not to know it: for neither hath he revealed it to any. Lastly, although we do affirm according to the scripture, that the child jesus did increase in the gifts of the mind, as he did in the stature of his body: yet we do put great difference between him, and all other children that ever came into the world: for as his conception & birth were not after the common manner; (for he was conceived by the holy Ghost, & brought forth without travel and labour: as August. saith, Nec concipiendo libidinem, nec pariendo perpessa est dolorem: In conceiving she felt no carnal desire; in bearing she suffered no pain:) So likewise, De 5. haeres. cap. 5. the holy and blessed babe, in the constitution both of body and soul excelled the common condition of all other infants: for as he was void of original sin, so he was without the effects and fruits thereof, which do show themselves in children: for neither suffered he the like pangs and infirmities in body, being in his infancy, as other children do, that are vexed and tormented in body: neither was he subject to the unreasonable and brutish motions of the mind, which are in children. Therefore Augustine saith, Hanc ignorantiam & animi infirmitatem, quam videmus in paruulis, nullo modo fuerim in Christo paruulo suspicatus: This kind of ignorance and infirmity of mind, which is in children, I cannot think to have been in the babe Christ. And what ignorance and infirmity he meaneth, afterward he expresseth, De peccat. merit. & remiss. 29. Cum motibus irrationabilibus perturbantur, nulla ratione, nullo imperio cohibentur: When their brutish and unreasonable motions come upon them, they are ruled neither by reason, nor any other government. These infirmities both in body and soul we deny to have been in Christ: and yet we doubt not to conclude, that, as Christ grew in stature of body: as Augustine saith, Ibid. Mutationes aetatum perpeti voluit ab ipsa exorsus infantia: He passed through the ages of man's life, beginning with his infancy: so likewise, as the scripture saith, he increased in wisdom, Luk. 2.52. AN APPENDIX, OF THE MANNER of Christ's birth. The Papists. THey say, Christ came out of his mother's womb, the clausure not stirred: as error 99 he passed thorough the doors when he came in to his disciples, the doors being shut, john. 20.19. and as he passed thorough the stone, arising out of the Sepulchre, Rhemist. annot. john 20. sect. 2. Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9 The Protestants. 1. IT can never be proved, that Christ's body came either thorough the wood of the doors, or thorough the stone of the Sepulchre, or clausure of his mother's womb. And concerning the last, the scripture is evident to the contrary, where it is said, that our Saviour Christ was presented to the Lord, according as it is written: Every male that first openeth the matrix, etc. Luk. 2.29. 2. We grant, that both the birth of Christ, his rising out of the grave, his coming in, the doors being shut, was strange and miraculous, because one substance gave place to another for a time, and after the passing of his body, the place remained whole and shut as before: but not in the very instant of passing. The red sea gave place to the Israelites while they passed, and closed together again: so did the prison doors open miraculously to the Apostles, Act. 5.19. An incredulous jew seeing the ear of Malchus so soon healed, would not have thought that Peter's sword went between it and his head, as we are sure it did: So we say concerning the birth of Christ, that the place gave way while he passed, and closed up afterward again as before. Augustine bringeth in Christ, thus speaking, Ego viam meo itineri praeparavi: and a little after, transitu meo illius non est corrupta virginitas: De 5. haeres. cap. 5. I made a way for myself out of the womb: neither by my passage was her virginity lost. Christ had a way out of his mother's womb: but if the clausure had not given place, there had been no way made. Epistol 57 Again he saith, Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt: Take away space of place from bodies, and they shall be no where, and if they be no where, then are they not at all. But the Papists in saying that Christ went thorough the very substance and corpulence of things, do take away from his body his proper place: for two substances cannot be in one place, and therefore they destroy the nature of his body. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER CHRIST suffered in soul. The Papists. THey utterly deny, that Christ felt any pain or anguish in soul upon the error 100 Cross, otherwise then for grief of his bodily torments: but do charge them with horrible blasphemy that do so affirm, Rhemist. Math. 27. sect. 3. 1. The scripture doth ascribe the work of our redemption and reconciliation only to the blood of Christ upon the Cross, Coloss. 1.20. Ephes. 1.7. Ergo, the death of the body of Christ, without any further anguish in soul, was sufficient, Bellarm. de Christi anima. lib. 4. cap. 8. Ans. 1. By the blood of Christ upon the Cross, must needs be understood all the parts and circumstances of his passion, both his sufferings in body and soul: for if it should be understood properly, the blood of Christ only were sufficient, and so his body and flesh should be excluded: and if the shedding of his blood be taken simply, we shall find, that it was no part of his death: for his side was pierced, whereout issued water and blood, after he had yielded up the ghost, and all the torments of death were passed: yea after he had uttered these words upon the Cross, It is finished, that is, he had paid the full ransom for mankind, john. 19 vers. 30.34. Wherefore by his blood must be understood, by a Synecdoche, when one part is taken for the whole, all the other pains and torments which he suffered in his flesh. Secondly, yea and the pains of the soul to are by that speech fitly expressed: for the blood of every creature, is the life thereof, Genes. 9.4. Levit. 17.14. But the soul is the life of man: Ergo, not unproperly by the shedding of Christ's blood, even the vexation, and at the last the expiration of his soul, and so his whole passion both in body and soul is signified. Wherefore as in those places alleged, we read the blood of Christ, or the blood of the Cross, so otherwhere in more general terms the Apostles call it, The dying of Christ, 2. Cor. 4.10. And the sufferings of Christ, 1. Pet. 4.13. Argum. 2. If Christ, when he cried out upon the Cross, O God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? had felt the wrath of God, and despaired of his help, he should most grievously have sinned: Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It cannot be, that Christ thus cried out for the pain of bodily death: for than he had been of greater infirmity than many of his servants, that in the midst of extreme torments never complained. And therefore it must needs be the burden of the wrath and curse of God, that he endured for our sin, that made him so to cry out upon the cross. 2. Neither doth it follow that Christ uttered those words in despair, but only to show the great anguish, trouble, and perturbation of his spirit, being upon the cross considered now as a mere man, his divine nature and power repressing and hiding itself for a time: and although in the vexation of his soul he thus cried out, yet he was not altogether left comfortless in spirit, in that he said, My God, my God: which words must needs declare an inward confidence and assured trust in God. The Protestants. WE hold, it was necessary for our redemption, that Christ should not only suffer bodily pains, but also feel the very anguish and horror of soul: that as by his death we are redeemed both body and soul, so he should pay the ransom for both in his body and soul. 1. That our Saviour suffered great anguish in soul, the scripture testifieth: for before his suffering in his body upon the cross, being in the garden, he saith of himself, My soul is heavy unto death: at the same time being grievously troubled: he sweat water and blood: and last of all, hanging upon the cross he cried out. By those effects it is evidently proved, that there was a greater fear in him, then of the death of the body: for many holy Martyrs have without any show of such grief endured horrible torments in the flesh, and therefore consequently it followeth, that those things proceeded from the grief of his soul, as the Apostle showeth: Heb. 5.7. He offered up prayers with strong crying and tears, to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared. If it had been only fear of bodily death, what need such strong cries with tears? And the text is plain, that he was heard, that is, saved from the death which he feared: but he was not saved from the bodily death: for he died and gave up the ghost: wherefore it was the great horror of soul that caused him to fear. Bellarm. answereth for all this, that it was the bodily death which he feared: but not of necessity, because he could not otherwise choose, but willingly, he would abide this brunt also of the fear and sorrow of death: Voluit poenam maeroris & timoris subire ut redemptio esset copiosae. And herein he exceedeth all other men that have suffered: for they are rid from fear, because God giveth them greater comfort, and they regard not the present torment: but Christ willingly and of his own accord drew himself into this agony of fear. Ans. 1. That Christ as he was God, had determined and set it down to die for the world, it is not to be doubted of: but that as he was man, he had not a desire to escape death, as being ignorant of God's determination, it is contrary to the Scriptures: which make mention of his earnest prayer that he made thrice, that the cup might pass, Math. 26. Therefore Christ willingly entered not into that agony of fear in his human desire, but as submitting himself and his will in obedience to his fathers will. 2. He is contrary to himself, in saying that Christ's bodily sufferings were sufficient for our redemption, and yet granteth, that Christ, ut redemptio esset copiosa, That our redemption might be more full, would abide also the smart of the fear of death: If he feared but the bodily death, as he saith, yet was he troubled in soul, and therefore besides bodily pain, he suffered anguish in his soul. Argum. 2. Act. 2.24. Whom God hath raised up, saith S. Peter, and loosed the sorrows of death, for it was impossible that he should be holden of it: Ergo, Christ suffered the sorrows of death, and felt the wrath of God, which caused those sorrows. The vulgar Latin hath the sorrow, of hell (solutis dolorib. infern●) which pincheth the Papists very sore: for how could Christ be loosed from the sorrows of hell, if first he had not been held of them? That which Bellarmine answereth, that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell for others, which were to be delivered, is but a poor shift: for the text is plain, It was impossible that he, that is, Christ himself, should be still holden of it: it is spoken of the holding of Christ and not of any other. Argu. 3. The prophet Esay saith, He was wounded for our sins, and broken for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed, Esay 53.5. But we could have no peace with God, unless all the punishment due unto us for our sin, had been undertaken by Christ: wherefore seeing we by our sin, had deserved to be punished both in body & soul, it was necessary, that our redeemer should be wounded and broken wholly for us: for how else by his stripes should we wholly be healed? Augustine thus reasoneth against Felicianus the Arrian, and proveth that Christ took not only human flesh, but an human soul. Si totus homo peri●●, etc. If man wholly were lost, saith he, he had wholly need of a Saviour, and if he wholly needed a Saviour, Christ by his coming wholly redeemed him: therefore Christ took upon him the whole nature of man, both body & soul: for if, since the whole man hath sinned, Christ only had taken our flesh, the soul of man should still remain guilty of punishment: haec Augustine count Felician. cap. 13. By the same reason we prove it was necessary that Christ should suffer both in body and soul: by the which Augustine inferreth, that Christ took both body and soul: he did assume them both, to redeem both: But he redeemed us, not in being borne for us, or walking, or preaching here upon earth, (although these were preparations to his sacrifice) but by dying and suffering for us: Ergo, he suffered both in body & soul the punishment due unto sinners. They grant that Christ suffered anguish in soul, yet not properly in the soul, but only for the bodily death, which was no part of the punishment of the soul: which consisted in the very sense and feeling of God's wrath, and the torments of hell due unto mankind for their sins. This punishment of the soul ought also necessarily to have been undertaken by Christ, being the redeemer both of body and soul. THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER CHRIST descended in soul into hell, to deliver the patriarchs. The Papists. THey do believe that Christ according to his soul went down to hell, to error 101 deliver the patriarchs and all just men there holden in bondage till his death, Rhemist. Act. 2. sect. 12. Argum. 2. He that ascended, is he that descended first into the lowest parts of the earth, Ephes. 4.9. that is, into hell, the which is the lowest place in the earth, Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. The earth itself is in respect of the world, the lowest part, so that here one part of the earth is not to be compared with another: but the whole earth in respect of the high heavens hath the name of the lower parts: so is it taken Psal. 139. ver. 15. Thou hast fashioned me beneath or in the lower parts of the earth: But David (I trust) they will not say, was borne in hell, because he speaketh of the lower parts of the earth, consul. Bez. in hunc locum. So that by the descending of Christ into the lowest parts of the earth, is meant nothing else, but the lowest and extremest degree of his abasing and humiliation, Fulke annot. in hunc locum, as S. Paul saith, That he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, Philip. 2.7. The Protestants. THat Christ our Saviour by the virtue of his death, did overcome hell and the devil, we do verily believe, which may be called a descent into hell: that he also suffered the torments of hell upon the cross, and so descended into hell for us, to abide that bitter pain which we had deserved to suffer eternally, we do also hold and teach: for what rather may be called hell, than the anguish of soul, which he suffered, when he being God, yet complained that he was forsaken of God Furthermore, if descending into hell, be taken according to the Hebrew phrase, For entering into the state of the dead: so we also grant, that Christ descended into hell, Fulk Act. 2. sect. 11. But for the descending of Christ into hell, after your sense, to deliver the patriarchs from thence, when you can prove it out of Scripture, we will yield unto you. 1. The soul of Christ which he committed into his Father's hands, was in Paradise, where he promised the thief should be with him, Luke 22.43. How then could his soul be three days in hell, as you affirm, from the time of his death to his resurrection? Fulke Luke 11. sect. 4. Bellarm. answereth, that it was not impossible, that the soul of Christ should be in two places at once, cap. 15. which is an answer not worthy to be answered: for who hath taught them so boldly to build their fantasies upon God's power, having no warrant not assurance of his will? May not the Ubiquitaries by the same reason prove the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, because he is able to make his soul and body to be in many places at once, as well as in two: and so consequently by his power, which is infinite as well in all places, as in many? 2. We believe that the patriarchs and godly Fathers were in heaven or Paradise, as well before the resurrection of Christ as after: for in as much as they were justified by faith in his blood, they received the same crown and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by the same means. This we have proved more at large, controu. 9 quest. 1. Wherefore seeing there were none in hell, which they call Limbus Patrum, to be delivered, there was no such cause why Christ should descend into hell. Therefore he descended not to deliver the patriarchs that remained in darkness. 3. They agree not among themselves about this article of Christ's descension, to deliver the patriarchs: Andradius saith, it cannot be proved out of Scripture: but Bellarmine and our Rhemists do bring their best arguments for it out of Scripture: they allege also divers causes of his descension: the Roman Catechism rendereth two reasons, one, to set the patriarchs at liberty, the other, to manifest the power and virtue of his death in hell: but that, S. Paul saith, was sufficiently manifested and made known upon the cross, Colos. 2.15. Thomas Aquinas beside these, addeth a third, that as Christ died for us to free us from death, so it was convenient that he should descend into hell, to deliver us from the descension into hell: as though Christ by his death did not fully deliver us from eternal damnation: Some other hold, that Christ went thither to suffer the torments of hell, that he might fully pay our ransom by suffering the whole punishment due unto mankind: but this is a very gross and erroneous opinion: for Christ suffered fully in body and soul upon the Cross, when he cried, Consummatum est, It is finished: that is, he had fully appeased the wrath of God by his sufferings. Augustine saith plainly, that he knew not what good Christ wrought for the just souls that were in the bosom of Abraham, when he descended into hell: a quib. eum secundum beatificam praesentiam divinitatis, Epistol. 99 nunquam video recessisse: From whom I find he was never absent or withdrew himself by the blessed presence of his divine power: Ergo, in his judgement Christ descended not to deliver the patriarchs. And concerning the soul of Christ, he writeth flatly: Si mortuo corpore anima latronis ad Paradisum mox vocatur, quempiam adhuc tam impium credimus, qui dicere audeat, quoniam anima salvatoris nostri triduo illo corpor●ae mortis apud inferos custodiae mancipetur? If the soul of the thief straightway being gone from the body, was called up to heaven: is there any man so wicked, to say that the soul of our Saviour was kept three days in the prison of hell? By his sentence then, the soul of Christ passed strait to heaven, and descended not to hell. AN APPENDIX, CONCERNING the place of Hell. The Papists. THe place where damned spirits are tormented, they say, is about the centre of the earth, the lowest of all places, and nothing lower than it, Bellarm. de error 102 Christi anima. lib. 4. cap. 10. Their Limbus Patrum, the place of darkness, where the Fathers were before Christ, is, say they, in the highest part, and as it were the brim of hell, Rhemist. Luke 1●. 22. Between these two places there is a great gulf or space, and there is Purgatory, Rhemist. Luk. 16. sect. 8. Wherefore they conclude, veros inferos esse loca subterranea: That the subterrestrial and infernal places do properly make hell, Bellarm. cap. 8. And so hell should be properly a place of punishment: because of the far distance from heaven: whereas not so much the distance of place, as the absence of God's spirit, and loss of his favour, maketh it a place of horror and misery. Argum. 1. Math. 12.40. As jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the Whale, so the son of man must be in the hart of the earth: but the grave is not in the hart, but the brim of the earth: Ergo, we must needs understand Hell, which is in the midst of the earth. Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. This place cannot otherwise be applied, then to signify the burial of Christ, and his abode in the grave, and his rising again the third day: of his soul it cannot properly be meant: for Christ saith, he will give them the sign of jonas in himself: but a sign is conspicuous, visible and apparent: how could then the descending of his soul be a sign unto them, which they knew not, neither could see? But the laying of his body into the grave, and the remaining there to the third day, they were all eye witnesses of: Also there is great affinity between the two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sign, which is there used, Math. 12.40. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth sepulchrum, a grave, the one word being fitly derived of the other: what better, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, then could he give them, then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his own grave or Sepulchre? Secondly, to be in the hart of the earth, is nothing else but to be within the earth, according to the Hebrew phrase, as Exod. 15.8. The hart of the Sea, that is, within the Sea: So Christ's body was in the earth, it lay hid as it were in the bowels of the earth. 3. This exposition is against themselves: for if Christ went down to the very hart and midst of the earth, which is the centre, than he descended to the place of the damned: for neither Limbus Patrum, nor Purgatory, are in the centre or lowest part of the earth by their opinion: but they themselves hold the contrary: for they say, that Christ by descending, delivered souls out of the two uppermost hells, Limbus, and Purgatory, but not out of the nethermost hell, which is the place of the damned, Rhemist. Luke 16. sect. 8. Also it should follow of this their interpretation, that the soul of Christ was as long in hell, as his body in the grave, which is against the opinion of many Papists. Argum. 2. Luke 8.31. The Devils desired Christ, that he would not send them into the deep: what is that else but the lowest region of the earth, where hell is, which Saint Paul calleth the lowest parts of the earth? Bellarmine. Ans. We deny not but that God hath prepared, and that there is a place of unspeakable torments ordained for the devil and his angels, and all damned souls: but that this place should be in the centre of the earth, the places alleged prove not: for the word Abyssus translated, the deep, is sometime taken figuratively in a metaphor, as Rom. 11.33. O the deepness of the wisdom of God: the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not much varying in signification from abyssus: so the place of their punishment is said to be a great depth, that is, a place of unsearchable and unspeakable misery and horror. Neither must this word abyssus, of necessity be referred to the earth, for there are abyssi maris, the depths of the Sea, Exod. 15.8. as well as of the earth. The lower places which S. Paul speaketh of Eph. 4. may be either understood generally of the whole earth, which is pars mundi infima, the lowest part of the world, or else of the great abasing of Christ▪ from heaven to earth, being God, to become a servant: as also the grave of Christ was that lowest part of the earth: for the Apostle saith in the comparative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lower, not the lowest: and so your vulgar Latin translateth, inferiora, not infima terrae: but hell is the lowest part, the grave is said to be the lower. The Protestants. THat there is a local place of torment prepared for the devil and his angels, we doubt not, being so taught in the Scripture, Math. 25.41. A place of darkness, 2. Pet. 2.4. far distant from the heavenly mansions of the blessed, Luke 16.26. Neither do we deny but that it may be in the earth, or wheresoever else it pleaseth God: but wheresoever hell is, there is but one: that division of hell into three or four regions, we utterly condemn, as a mere devise of man without Scripture: and this we say, that the place of hell causeth not the torment, but the wrath and curse of God: for even out of hell God may make a man to feel the torments of hell, as we doubt not but our Saviour Christ did for us and our redemption upon the cross. Argum. 1. It is possible to feel the pain of hell in the soul, although not ●n the proper and appointed place of hell: as job complaineth, The arrows of the Almighty are in me, the venom thereof doth drink up my spirit, and the terrors of God fight against me. And therefore he saith, his grief was heavier than the sand of the Sea, job. 6.4.14. job felt even the hell of conscience in himself for the time: yea our Saviour bore the burden of his father's wrath upon the Cross, as we have showed before: Ergo, it is not the place that maketh hell. Argu. 2. Hell is nothing else as the Scripture defineth it, but to be cast into utter darkness, There shallbe weeping and gnashing of teeth, Math. 25.30.22.13. The darkness causeth weeping & horrible gnashing of teeth, the unspeakable punishment both of body and soul: this darkness is not the absence of the light of the sun: for neither shall the Saints in heaven have that light, because they need it not, Apoc. 22.5. And it shallbe a place of darkness to the damned angels, which have no use of the Sun light: they also are reserved in chains of darkness, Jude 6. as they are no material chains, so neither is it an outward darkness: but the absence of God's favour and the light of his countenance: as the people are said to have sit in darkness, before the light of the gospel by the preaching of jesus Christ, did shine unto them, Math. 4.16. But they much more shallbe and are kept in darkness, that are condemned to hell, where they feel nothing but the horror of God's wrath, his eternal and endless curse, with unspeakable torments now in soul, and afterward both in body & soul, without all comfort or hope of refreshing, utterly excluded from the presence of God: wherefore it is not the place, but the wrath of God, and absence of his spirit, that causeth such endless and unspeakable punishment. Argu. 3. As for your distinction of hell, the brim whereof you say is Limbus patrum, the middle part, Purgatory, the lowest and nethermost hell itself, the place of the damned, in Augustine's time it was not known: for first that the bosom of Abraham was part of hell, he utterly denieth: Apparet non esse membrum inferorum, tantae illius foelicitatis ●inum: That bosom of so great bliss can be no member or part of hell, Epist. 99 Again Purgatory he utterly refuseth, acknowledging but two places: heaven for the faithful, hell for the damned and unbelievers: Tertium locum penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scriptures sanctis invenimus. A third place we are utterly ignorant of, yea we find in holy Scriptures that it is not. August, hypognost. THE NINETEENTH CONTROVERSY, OF MATTERS WHICH ARE IN QUESTION concerning the divine nature of Christ. THis controversy containeth three Questions. First, whether Christ be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself. Secondly, whether he be mediator as God, or man, or as both. Thirdly, whether he have by his deserts purchased any thing for himself. THE FIRST PART, WHETHER CHRIST be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself. The Papists. error 103 THey deny that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself, and affirm, that he had not only his person, but his substance of his Father: whereupon they are bold to charge Caluine with blasphemy, for saying, that Christ is God of himself as well as the Father, Rhemist. joh. 1. sect. 3. Argum. The word was with God, to wit, the son is with and of the father, and not the father of the son: Ergo, the son is God, with and of his father: Rhemist. ibid. Ans. This place proveth, that the son of God, as he is the son, is of God: for to be the son of God, the word, the wisdom of God, 1. Cor. 1.30. His image, Heb. 1.3. do belong unto his person: So then as he is the son, the wisdom of God, or the word, so he is of God, namely in respect of his person: but as the son is God, he is of himself, neither taketh he his essence but person only of his Father. The Protestants. THat we may fully know the state of this question, we must first set down certain propositions▪ First, we do worship one eternal, omnipotent, & only wise God, one and the same in power, essence, eternity: but three in person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: there is the same nature, essence, and deity of them all, though they be distinguished in person: As there is one nature of the light, the heat thereof and the shining brightness, Lucis, splendoris, caloris, as Augustine putteth the example: which three differ amongst themselves in property and quality, yet have one and the self same nature and substance: God the father is as the light, jam. 1.17. God the Son is as the brightness of his glory, Heb. 1.3. God the holy Ghost is as the heat or fire, Heb. 12.29. Thus these three are one in nature and essence, but three in person. 2. There is somewhat communicable to them all, as the Godhead and divine power and nature: Somewhat incommunicable, as the several proprieties of the persons: for it is proper only to the father to beget, proper to the Son only to be begotten, proper only to the holy Ghost to proceed from them both. There is no essential difference in the Trinity: for there is one essence and divine nature common to them all. But there is both a real and rational difference: The persons differ one from another really, though not essentially. But the persons differ only rationally or in respect from the essence of the Godhead: as the father and the son amongst men differ not essentially, for they are both men. But they are really, verily, and indeed distinguished; for it is one thing to be the father, another to be the son: yet from their own essence their persons only differ in respect and relation, not verily, non re, sed ratione: for the father is a man, the son also is a man: but in one respect he is a father, & in an other he is man: so likewise of the son, yet one and the same, is both father and man; one and the same is both son and man: so is it in the Trinity. Now to the point of the question, which we have in hand. The Son therefore in the blessed Trinity is begotten of his father's essence, and hath the whole essence of his father, not by propagation, partition, profluence, but only by communication. The son is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Son of himself, because he is son of the father: But he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, very God of himself: The essence or Godhead of the Son is of himself, not of the father: for it is one and the selfsame essence, which the father hath. He is indeed, Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, God of God, light of light: But not as he is God, is he of God, but as he is the Son. It is one thing for the person of the Son to be begotten of the essence of the Father, which we grant: another thing, for the essence of the Son to be begotten, which we must not yield to. So we conclude, that Christ as he is the Son, is of God the Father, as he is God, he is of himself. Argum. 1. The essence of the Father is of himself, not begotten of any: but the essence and Deity of the Son is the same and all one with his Fathers. Ergo, it is not begotten of any other. Again, he is not God whose essence is not of himself: therefore if Christ's essence be not of himself, he should not be God. Argum. 2. Our Saviour himself saith, As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself, john 5.26. The Son than hath life in himself: Ergo, he is GOD of himself. Augustine upon these words writeth: Non quasi mutuatur vitam, nec quasi particeps vitae, In johan. tract. 19 sed ipse vitam in se habet, ut ipsa vita sibi sit ipse: He did not as it were borrow life of his father, neither is made partaker of life, but he hath life in himself, he is life unto himself. But lest any man should thus mistake the words of the text, that because the Father gave to the Son to have life in himself, therefore he gave him to be God: (for to have life in himself is to be God) Augustine thus expoundeth them: Dedit filio vitam habere in se, breviter dixerim, genuit filium: He gave to his Son to have life in himself, in few words, He begat his Son. As if we should say, the Father which hath life in himself, that is, is God, gave to his Son to have life in himself, that is, begat God the Son: he begat him not as he was God, but as he was his Son: yet because of the near uniting and conjunction of the person with the Godhead and divine power to have life in himself, which really cannot be distinguished, but only in respect, as we have showed: the Father is said also to give unto the Son to be God, and to have life in himself, not directly or properly but obliquely and by a consequent, because his Son whom he begat from all eternity, must also necessarily be God. And that it cannot be the proper meaning, that God the Father gave to the Son power to have life in himself, it appeareth by the words themselves: for as the Father hath life in himself, even so hath he given to the Son: but the Father hath life in himself, without beginning from any other. Ergo, so hath the Son. There should else be a contrariety and repugnancy in the speech: for if Christ received life from his father, he could not have it in himself. It must therefore of necessity be understood of the person in the Trinity, not of the divine essence. And so we determine that it is true in the concrete, in concreto, if we say, Deus Pater genuit Deum Filium: God the Father begat God the Son, but not in abstracto, Deitas Patris genuit Deitatem Filium, that the Godhead of the Father begat the Godhead of the Son. But in respect of his person only as he is the Son the second person in Trinity, so is he begotten and hath his beginning of God. But in respect of his divine nature as he is God, he is begotten of none, but of himself as God the Father is. THE SECOND PART, WHETHER CHRIST be our mediator, as he is man only, or as he is both GOD and man. The Papists. error 104 THey do teach that Christ only exercised his priesthood & the office of the mediator, as he was man, not as he was both God & man, Rhem. Heb. 5. sect. 4 His obedience, sacrifice, prayer, satisfaction, entering into the heavens, was all performed by & in his manhood only, Secundum formam servi, as he was in the form of a servant, not secundum formam Dei, as he was in the form of God, Bellarm. de Christo, lib. 1. cap. 1. Argum. 1. If he were priest as he is God, he should be inferior and not equal to God, and so be God's priest and not his Son: for he to whom sacrifice is offered, is greater than he that offereth it, Rhemist. ibid. Answ. It followeth not, that because Christ is our priest and mediator as God and man, that therefore he should perform all the duties of the Priesthood as he was God: all the parts of his priesthood that required obedience, service, homage, subjection, as were his sufferings and sacrifice, he exercised as man: but the authority of reconciling us to God, he wrought both as God and man. Argum. 2. There is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ, 1. Timoth. 2.5. Why saith the Apostle, The man jesus Christ, but to signify, that according to his manhood only he is our Mediator. Bellarm. cap. 3. Ans. 1. You may as well conclude out of this place, that the Mediator is only man and not GOD, as that he is mediator only as man and not as GOD: but if out of these words it may be proved, that the Mediator is both GOD and man, as it necessarily followeth, (for how else can he be a Mediator of God and men?) it doth as well follow that he is Mediator both as God and as man. Indeed the Apostle saith, The man jesus Christ, not God and man, for the one he had said before, There is one God; in that speech including our Saviour Christ, who is one God with his Father. Secondly, what Saint Paul's meaning is, it appeareth in the next verse, who gave himself a ransom, vers. 6. As Christ therefore gave himself a ransom, so is he Priest and Mediator: but he gave himself as he was God; as he was man, he was given: Ergo, as God he is Mediator. The Protestants. IN the office of the Priesthood two things must be considered, a ministery, and an authority: In respect of the ministerial part Christ performed the office of his priesthood as man, but in respect of authority of entering into the holiest place, and reconciling us to God, which was the principal part of his Priesthood, he did perform it as the Son of God, as the Lord and maker of the house, and not as a servant. And so we hold that Christ neither according to his humanity alone, nor his Godhead alone, but that whole Christ is a Priest, both as God and man. Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, 2. Corinth. 5.19. Ergo, Christ, as God, is our reconciler and mediator. Again, Christ as he is without Father and mother, hath no beginning of his days, nor end of his life, so is he a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: but Christ as he is God and man hath neither father nor mother: as he is God hath no beginning of days, and in his whole person no end of his life, therefore as God and man he is a Priest of Melchisedechs' order. Argum. 2. Saint Paul saith, The law was given by Angels in the hand of a Mediator, Galath. 3.19. But then Christ was God only: Ergo, he is Mediator also as God. Bellarmine saith, that he is called Mediator, because that person was appointed afterward to be Mediator: But the text is plain, that he then actually performed the office of a Mediator, so much as pertained to his Godhead: for the Law was given in the hand of a Mediator, which kind of speech showeth a present execution of the Mediatorship. Augustine saith, Non mediator homo praeter divinitatem, divina humanitas, Homil. de. ovib. ca 12 & humana divinitas mediatrix: The man Christ is not mediator beside his divine nature, the divine humanity, and the human divinity, is the Mediatrix. Ergo, Christ Mediator both as God and man. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER CHRIST merited for himself. The Papists. error 105 CHrist, they say, by his passion and sufferings, hath not only merited eternal life for us, but even by his own merit obtained his own glorification, Rhemist. annot Hebr. 2.1. Argum. 1. Philip. 2.9. He humbled himself unto the death of the Cross, wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name above all names. Ergo, Christ merited his exaltation, Rhemist. in hunc locum. Ans. 1. This place showeth a sequel of the exaltation of Christ after his humiliation, it maketh not one the cause of another, as our Saviour himself saith, Luk. 24.26. Christ ought to have suffered, and so enter into his glory. Secondly, the exaltation which the Apostle here speaketh of, is the fame, which God challengeth to himself, Isai. 45.22. Every knee shall bow unto me, and every tongue shall swear by me. But it were most gross to affirm, that the divine power and glory can be merited: Christ hath his divinity by nature, and not by merit. The Protestants. IT is not in any wise to be thought, that Christ merited his glory, which is due to him in respect of his divinity: but that by the glorious work of our redemption, he hath declared himself to be a person worthy of all honour and glory, Apocal. 5.9. the place is so to be understood. Argum. 1. If Christ had respect unto himself in his sufferings, to gain or merit any thing for himself, his love should greatly be obscured and darkened, which Saint Paul so greatly commendeth, In that he died for his enemies, Rom. 5.10. For now should not his love be whole and entire towards us, as though for our cause he only had died: But it is now a divided and half love: for he died, as they say, partly to merit for himself, partly to merit for us. But the scripture speaketh clean contrary, john 17.9. For their sakes sanctify I myself: he saith not, partly for their sakes, partly for mine own. Argum. 2. All glory that Christ hath, was from everlasting due to his person, because he is the eternal Son of God: As he himself saith, john 17.5. And now glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was, and this glory was due unto Christ so soon as he was incarnate by the right of his Godhead. Hebr. 1. When he bringeth in his first begotten Son into the world, he saith, Let all the Angels of God worship him. And the Rhemists themselves confess, in their Annotat. upon these words, that strait upon Christ's descending from heaven, it was the duty of Angels to worship him. Ergo, he merited not his glorification by his death, which was due unto him even at his first incarnation. Argum. 3. If Christ merited his own glorification, than he also merited the hypostatical union, that his manhood should be joined to his Godhead in unity of person; for his glory, majesty, and power given to his manhood, doth issue and arise from the uniting of his Godhead therewith in one person: but his humanity deserved not to be united to the Godhead: Nemo tam caecus est, saith Augustine, No man is so blind, that he dare say, De corrept. & great. cap. 11. that Christ by his well living merited to be called the Son of God. And he proveth it out of the first of Luk. vers. 35. Therefore shall that holy thing be called the Son of God: not for any works going before, but because the holy Ghost came upon her. Wherefore the divine glory which Christ hath, was not merited, but his own it was from the beginning, which glory the human nature in Christ is made partaker of, not for any merit, but because it is united to the Godhead in the same person, through the abundant and unspeakable grace and love of God unto mankind, which of his free grace rather took unto himself the nature of men, then of Angels. Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice, hath merited abundantly for us, remission of sins, and eternal life: but by his merits he hath gained nothing for himself: neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings, but only to pay a ransom for us. THE TWENTIETH GENERAL CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING THE COMING OF CHRIST TO judgement: which appertaineth to his whole person, as he is both God and man. THis controversy hath two parts: First, concerning the signs which must come to pass before his appearing. Secondly, of the time and manner of his appearing. The first part containeth three questions: Frst whether the Gospel be already preached to the whole world. Secondly, whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh, before the day of judgement. Thirdly, of the great persecutions toward the end of the world. THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER the Gospel be already preached through the world. The Papists. error 106 THey deny that the Gospel hath been already published to all nations of the world: for there are many great countries, which never heard of the Gospel, as they affirm. But before the coming of Christ to judgement, they say, it shall be preached to the whole world, Bellar. de Roman pontiff. lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14. Christ saith, This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached through the whole world, for a witness unto all nations, & then shall the end come. The end of the world shall immediately follow the general preaching of the Gospel: which if it hath been performed, it is most like to have been done in the Apostles time: then the world should have ended long ago, Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word, Then, doth not always in the scripture signify a certain and definite time presently to follow, as Math. 9.1. Then he entered into a ship, and so forth. Luke also setteth forth the same story, cap. 5.18. Then brought they a man lying in a bed: But in saying Then, they have not relation to the same time; for they keep not the same order, in rehearsing the story: Matthew setteth down one thing, that was immediately done by our Saviour Christ before, and Luke another. And so is the word, Then, used in other places, not to describe a consequence of time, with relation to that which went before, August. de consensu Euangel. 43. 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 upon the general publishing of the Gospel, but which God hath appointed. We must also consider who it is, that saith, Then, namely, God himself, with whom a thousand years is as one day, and one day as a thousand years. Christ (Then) may come many hundred years 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 through the whole chapter, as vers. 21. Then shall be great tribulation, which cannot have relation to that which he spoke of before; for than it must be understood of the destruction of jerusalem: but our Saviour meaneth by (Then) the time towards the end of the world: as vers. 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the Sun shallbe darkened: Then shall the sign of the Son of man appear. Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countries of late, which never heard the Gospel afore, as it is thought, Rhemist. Math. 24. sect. 4. Ans. 1. They speak doubtfully, they cannot tell: as it is thought, say they. 2. They mean the preaching of their Friars, in those new found countries, which was not the preaching of the Gospel, but of vile superstition, not to convert the people to God, but to rob and spoil them, and make a pray of them, killing & slaying them without all mercy: read Benzo in historia novi orbis. 3. We deny not but that the Gospel may be revived and renewed in many countries, where notwithstanding it was planted many years afore: As this country of ours in ancient time called Brittany, was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of joseph of Arimathea, as Gildas saith: or as Nicephorus saith, by Simon Zelotes: yet after that, the foundation of the faith thus begun, Fox p. 106. it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius days, 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 pass in other countries: a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former, but confirmeth and reviveth it. The Protestants. THat the Gospel was by the Apostles preached to all the known and inhabited nations of the world, we cannot but affirm, being so taught by the scriptures. Argum. 1. Our Saviour saith to his Apostles, Ye shallbe my witnesses to the uttermost parts 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 coming of the holy Ghost, and how first they should begin to witness at jerusalem: which things were indeed so accomplished in the Apostles. Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18. expoundeth that place of the Psalm, Their sound is gone forth into all the world, of the Apostles. Again, seeing the Apostolical calling and gift is now ceased, neither are we to look that men should be immediately called from heaven, and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations is an Apostolical work, for the which the Apostles also received the gifts of tongues: seeing now we have neither Apostolic men, nor Apostolic gifts, we are not to doubt, but that this promise and prophesy of the universal preaching of the Gospel, is performed already. Argum. 2. It appeareth in Ecclesiastical histories, that the Apostles dispersed themselves into all parts of the world, every where preaching the Gospel. Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, also to the Germans: Fox. p. 32. Simon Zelotes, in Mauritania, Africa, and in Britania: judas, called Thaddaeus, in Mesopotamia: Mark, in Egypt: Bartholomaeus to the Indians: Andrew preached to the Scythians, Sogdians, Aethopians: So that there were few or no known countries in the world, which heard not of the fame of the Gospel. But here two things must be observed: First, that the Gospel was to be preached in the habitable or known world: the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Many countries are inhabited now that were not habitable then, Matt. 24.14 or at the least not inhabited: wherefore it was sufficient, that the people of the world heard of the Gospel, howsoever afterward they were propagated into other unknown places. Secondly, as Augustine saith, Omnes gentes promissae sunt, non omnes homines omnium gentium: All nations were promised to hear of the Gospel, not all the men and inhabitants of every nation. Epistol. 80. And so we doubt not but the Apostles did lay the foundation of faith through the whole world, and were first planters of the Churches in every nation. But their plantings were watered and increased, and continued by others. Wherefore, seeing the world hath once already been generally lightened with the truth of the Gospel, we are not to look any more for a solemn legacy and embassage to be sent from the Lord unto all nations: But those countries rather, which sometime had the truth, and now have lost it, ought now to seek unto those places that have it, as the Queen of Saba went a long journey to hear Salomons wisdom: They therefore that yet do expect an universal preaching, may sooner see Christ coming in the clouds, then have their expectation satisfied. THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE coming of Henoch and Elias before the day of judgement. The Papists. error 107 THeir common and received opinion is, that Henoch and Elias do yet live in their bodies in Paradise, and shall come in person, to oppose themselves against Antichrist, and by their preaching to convert the jews, Rhemist. Apocal. 11. sect. 4. Argum. Malachi 4.5. I will send you Eliah the Prophet, before the great and fearful day of the Lord. These are also the two witnesses spoken of, Apocal. 11.3. Which shall be slain and rise up again the third day. Ergo, Eliah and Henoch shall come before the day of the Lord, Bellarm. de Roman. pontiff 3.6. Ans. First, the prophesy of Malachi was fulfilled in john Baptist, who came in the spirit of Elias, as it is thrice in the Gospel applied: once by the Angel, Luk. 1.16. twice by our Saviour Christ, Matth. 11.14. & 17.13. Bellarmine saith, it is not properly understood of john Baptist, but only in an allegory. First, the Prophet speaketh of the great and fearful day of the Lord: but the coming of Christ was the acceptable time. Ans. Here the jesuite bewrayeth great ignorance: As though the coming of Christ in the flesh, as it brought comfort to the Elect, & to as many as were ordained to salvation, was not also hastening of the judgement of God against the wicked: and therefore john saith, The axe was laid to the root of the tree, Matth. 3.10. and that Christ came with his fan in his hand, verse 12. The Apostle, Heb. 12.26. apply that saying of the Prophet: Once again will I shake not only the heavens, but the earth, to the preaching of the Gospel: we see then in what sense the first coming of Christ is called a fearful and terrible day. Ans. Secondly, by the two witnesses, is understood the small, yet sufficient number of the true servants of God, which shall witness the truth even in the hottest persecution of Antichrist: there is no mention made of Henoch or Elias. And if you will needs understand that literally, of their rising again, why not the rest also, how fire shall proceed out of their mouths to consume the wicked, and they shall turn water into blood? The meaning is nothing else, but that God will always have faithful witnesses in his Church, which shall always stand up, in the stead of the Prophets and holy men gone before. The Protestants. LIke as the pharisees deceived the jews with vain expectation of Elias, and so hindered their belief in Christ: so the Papists would not have men to acknowledge the manifestation of Antichrist, under this false pretence, that Henoch and Elias must first come before Antichrist be revealed, which we do hold as a jewish fable and popish dream. Argum. 1. The prophesy of Elias coming is properly fulfilled in john Baptist, and therefore we are not to look for any other accomplishment thereof: neither now is there any Paradise remaining but Heaven, 2. Corinth. 12.4. And to affirm that Henoch and Elias went up to Heaven in their bodies, before the ascension of Christ, out of Scripture it cannot be proved: it is evident that they were taken up alive into heaven, but not that they continued alive. Argum. 2. The variety of opinions concerning the personal appearance of Henoch and Elias, declare that it is an uncertain thing, and but devised of men. Hilarye saith, they shallbe Moses and Elias: Chrysostome granteth that Elias shall come, but not Henoch. justine thinketh that not only Henoch and Elias are alive, but all those, whose bodies rose at the resurrection of Christ: Hippolytus is of opinion, that john the Divine shall come with them and some say jeremy also, whose death is not read of, Fulk. Apocal. 11. sect. 4. And thus it is no marvel, if men run mad as it were in their foolish conceits, having no warrant for their opinions out of Scriptures. The nation of the jews we grant, according to the manifest prophesy of Saint Paul, Rom. 11. shall in the end be converted: but not in such sort, by the personal preaching of Moses and Elias: for the Apostle setting down at large the mystery of their calling, would not have left out so necessary a thing. Augustine by the two witnesses, understandeth the two testaments, the Old and the new. But he denieth utterly, that any shall rise before the coming of Christ: In Apocal. Homil. 8. as the Apostle saith, 1. Corinth. 15.23. The first fruits is Christ, Then they that are Christ's at his coming, but not before. unde (saith he) excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam, qui putant hos duos testes duos viros esse, & ante adventum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse. Their suspicion therefore, or opinion is utterly excluded, which think these two witnesses to be two men, which should ascend into heaven before the coming of Christ. Augustine we see is flat against them. THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE most grievous persecutions that ever were, shall be toward the end of the world. The Papists. error 108 THe most grievous persecution (say they) that ever was, shall be under Antichrist, who is not yet come, but shall be revealed toward the end of the world, and shall reign upon the earth three years and an half, making great havoc of the Church of God. Bellarmine de Roman. pontifis. lib. 3. cap. 7. Argum. Matth. 24.21. There shall be▪ than such great tribulation in the world, as was not since the beginning of the world, neither shall be: Ergo▪ the greatest persecution toward the end of the world. Ans. 1. It is plain by the text, that this great tribulation is prophesied to come upon the jews: for in the next verse before he saith, pray that your flight be not in the winter: And then it followeth, there shall be then, or as Mark saith, In those days, there shall be such tribulation, 13.19. and in the 17. verse Woe shall be to them that give suck in those days. Which must needs be understood of the destruction of jerusalem: for at the coming of Christ, there shall be one and the same case of all, whether of those that give suck, or of those that give none. Secondly, it cannot be meant of the last tribulation in the world, because the words are, that as there was none such since the beginning of the world, so there shall be none such after. Ergo, there shall be tribulation after, though none such. The Protestants. Our hope and trust is, that the greatest persecution of the Church of God is overpast: because the kingdom or rather tyranny of Antichrist beginneth to decay, and we trust, shall more and more be shaken, till it come to utter ruin. Argum. 1. The Scripture telleth us, that hard upon the end of the world there shall be great security, men shall say, Peace peace unto themselves, 1. Thesal. 5.4. They shall eat and drink, marry and be married, as it was in the days of Noah, Matth. 24.38. And therefore Luke saith, 21.34. Take heed you be not overcome of surfeiting and drunkenness, lest this day come upon you unawares, For as a snare shall it come, etc. All this proveth, that there shall be rather general security, as in the days of Noah, then general tribulation. And there is greater danger of surfeiting & wantonness in time of prosperity and abundance, then in the days of persecution. Also the text is plain, speaking of wars, troubles and persecutions, but the end shall not be yet, Mark. 13.7. Wherefore it appeareth, that the troubles and persecutions of the Church, shall be well slaked toward the end of the world. Argum. 2. Antichrist, though he shall not utterly be extinguished before the coming of Christ, yet shall be deadly wounded: and he shall begin to be judged even in this world, Apocal. 16.6. God shall give them blood to drink, Apocal. 17.16. The ten horns, that is the kings of the earth, shall hate the whore and eat her flesh. The Church of God shall reward her, as she hath rewarded us, and give her double according to her works, Apocal. 18.6. By these places it is gathered, that Antichrist shall have a great overthrow before the coming of Christ, who shall utterly abolish him with the brightness of his coming, 2. Thes. 2.8. Antichrist is already come▪ and hath raged a long time against the Church: The persecutions of the heathen did neither continue so long, neither were in exquisite cruelty and bitterness to be compared to the outrageous practices of the Antichrist of Rome, and his adherents against the Church of God: which would fill a whole volume by themselves▪ nay not one, but many and infinite volumes to be declared at large. Augustine saith, Prima persecutio violen●● 〈…〉 tormentis, In Psal. 9 ●lterafraudulenta est per haereticos, tertia superest per Antichristum 〈◊〉▪ qu● nihil est ●ericulosius, quia & violenta & fraudulenta erit. The first persecution of the Church was violent with torments: the second was by fraudulent heretics: the third shall be under Antichrist, the worst of all, it shall be both violent, and fraudulent. This persecution under the Popes of Rome, the Church of God endured a great while: who both dealt fraudulently, in poisoning them with corrupt doctrine, and cruelly also, in punishing with sword and fire the innocent members of Christ: wherefore seeing it is a plain case, that Antichrist is, and hath been many a day revealed to the world, and that the Church of God beginneth to have some respite and liberty from his thraldom; we doubt not, but that the greatest storms of persecution are overpast, if by our sins we bring not back again the thick and misty cloud upon us. THE SECOND PART OF THIS Controversy, about the manner of Christ's coming to judgement. The Papists. error 109 1. THe faithful shall judge and give sentence with Christ (say they) at the latter day, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 6. vers. 2. They shall sit in thrones with Christ, Matth. 19 vers. 28. Ergo, judge together with him, Rhemist. ibid. The Protestants. Ans. 1. TRue it is, that the Saints shall judge the world, 1. Corinth. 6.2. But only Christ shall give sentence, Matth. 25. and is properly and only the judge of the world: for the father hath committed all judgement to the Son, john 5.22. If all, then there is no part left for any other. The Apostles therefore and Saints are said to judge, as Christ saith of his word, that he will not judge the unbelievers, but his word shall judge them in the last day, john 12.48. That is, shall be a witness against them, accuse them, lay in matter of judgement against them. So the word preached by the Saints upon earth, and practised in their lives, shall be the condemnation of the world. And not only so, but they shall be advanced to greater honour: They shall sit in thrones and seats: that is, they shall not stand amongst the wicked to receive sentence, but shall meet Christ in the air, and be caught up in the clouds, 1. Thess. 4.17. Yea, they shall in the sight and beholding of the ungodly enter into the kingdom of God, Luk. 13.28. But in any other sense they cannot be judges of the world: for shall we think, that Christ in that day shall need under officers and judges, as Moses did? Exod. ●8. Augustine saith, Sancti sedebunt cum domino attendere, In Psal. 121 qui fecerunt misericordia●●: The Saints shall ●it with the Lord, not to judge, but to mark and attend, and to witness, who have followed the works of mercy. The Papists. 2 THey are so bold as to appoint the place, where Christ shall appear, namely error 110 in the East: for his coming shall be as the lightning that shineth from East to West, Matth. 24.27. Bellarm. de cultu sanctor. lib. 3. cap. 3. The Protestants. Ans. FIrst, by that similitude Christ only showeth the suddenness of his coming: therefore it must be priest no further, then to that purpose for the which it serveth. Secondly, our Saviour saith plainly, that the kingdom of God cometh not with observation, Luk. 17.20. either of time, or place: And therefore, when men say unto us, Behold here, or behold there, we ought not to believe them, vers. 23. As though they would point out Christ's coming with the finger, either in the East or West. Whereas Matthew therefore nameth the East and West, in the similitude of the lightning, Luke leaveth them out, saying, As the lightning shineth from one part of the Heaven to the other, 17.24. Lest we should think any great matter to be in nomination of those parts. Augustine saith notably, Non ab Oriente veniet, nec Occidente: quare? quia Deus judex est: si in aliquo loco esset, non esset Deus: In Psal. 74. quia vero Deus judex est, non homo, noli illum expectare de locis: He will not come, either from the East, or from the West: why so? Because God is judge: if he were tied to any place, he were not God: but because God is judge, and not a mere man: we must not look for him from any place. The Papists. 3. THe Son of man shall appear in the day of judgement, with the sign error 111 of the Cross borne before him. Then shall the sign of the Son of man appear in Heaven, Matth. 24.3. that is (say they) the sign of the Cross, Bellarm. de sanct. lib. 2. cap. 28. Rhemist. in hunc locum. The Protestants. Ans. 1. THe sign of the Son of man in the Heavens, is nothing else, but his conspicuous and glorious appearing, who shall come in great glory, as a sign in the heavens to be seen of all the world. It cannot signify any such visible sign as they imagine: for Mark. 13.26. Luke 21.27. we read thus: Then shall they see the Son of man. So then, the sign of the Son of man, is the Son himself in his glorious appearing. Secondly, it is great presumption therefore, so boldly to affirm, that it shall be the sign of the Cross, having no Scripture for it. Other signs we find, that Christ hath appeared with, as the sign of the rainbow, Apocal. 10.1. with a two edged sword, Apocal. 1.16. with a book in his hand, Apocal. 10.2. We have better reason, that Christ may appear with those signs, by the which he hath sometime showed himself, than they have for the sign of the Crosse. 3 It is more like, that Christ at his coming should show the marks and prints of the nails and spear in his body, than the sign of the Cross: for those were felt and seen in his body after his resurrection, so was not the other. But it is a lose conjecture, and a vain surmise, without any ground of Scripture, that the wounds are either now in heaven to be seen in the glorious body of Christ, or that they shall be beheld and looked upon in the day of judgement. The wicked in deed shall behold him, whom they pierced: but it followeth not thereupon that he should appear as pierced. How is it possible, that either the body of Christ being perfectly glorified, should still retain any spots or blemishes, or that they could be espied in so glorious a body, which with the brightness thereof shall obscure the Sun? Homil. de temp. 147. Augustine giveth this judgement: Sic voluit resurgere Christus, sic voluit quibusdam dubitantibus exhibere in illa carne cicatrices vulneris ut sanaret vulnus incredulitatis. So it pleased Christ to arise, and to show in his flesh unto some that doubted, the scars of his wounds, to heal and take away the wound of their incredulity or unbelief. This then being the only cause, why Christ would at that time have the prints and marks in his flesh to be seen, namely to confirm the faith of them which doubted: the cause being now ceased, for is it to be thought that there are any doubtful persons in heaven, which may be confirmed by beholding Christ's wounds, or shall unbelievers find any relief in the day of judgement? The cause being removed, we have no warrant to think, that there are any such scars, either now to be seen in the glorious body of Christ, or which shall appear in the day of judgement. And seeing there is no ground for this opinion, the showing forth also of the sign of the cross in that day, is also but a wandering and a foolish conceit. The Papists. error 112 4. Such is their boldness, that they dare assign the very year, month, and day of Christ's coming to judgement: for they say, that Antichrist shall reign three years and an half, and one month, 1290. days, and counting 45. days after that, they shall see Christ coming in the clouds: Blessed is he, saith Daniel, that waiteth and cometh to the 1335. days, Dan. 12.12. Bellar. de pontiff. Rom. lib. 3. cap. 8. The Protestants. Ans. 1. THe prophesy of Daniel we have already showed, Controversy 4. Quaest 9 to have been fulfilled before the first coming of Christ, in Antiochus that cruel tyrant and persecutor of the people of God: how he should cause the daily sacrifice to cease 1290. days, that is, three years and seven months, 2. Macchab. 11.33. And that 45. days after, Antiochus being dead, the Church should find ease, 1. Macch. 6.16. Wherefore, seeing this prophesy hath once already had his effect, it is not necessary to look for any other: as Augustine saith of another prophesy of Daniel, Quae prophetia si tempore primi adventus impleta est, non cogit intelligi, Epistol. 80. quod etiam de fine seculi implebitur: Which prophesy if it hath been fulfilled in or before the first coming of Christ, it need not be understood of the latter. 2 This presumption of theirs is flat opposite and contrary to Scripture, which saith, That the hour and day of Christ's coming is not known to the Angels, nor to the Son of man, but to the Father only, Mark. 13.33. How then dare they presume beyond the knowledge of Angels? Augustine saith, Vtiliter latere voluit Deus illum diem, In Psal. 36. conci. 1. ut semper sit paratum cor ad expectandum, quòd esse venturum scit, & quando venturum sit, nescit: The Lord to great purpose would have that day kept secret, that our heart should be in continual expectation of that, which it is sure, shall come, but knoweth not when it shall come. Thus have I through the Lords gracious assistance, now at the length finished and brought to an end this long and tedious work, which I trust shall not be so irksome to the Christian Reader, as it was wearisome and painful to the flesh, in the collecting and compiling thereof: and yet not so painful, but that God hath made me able and willing to endure this, and greater pains, and that with comfort for the good of his Church. I excuse not, whatsoever hath fallen out of my pen in this work, if I have failed any where in the manner of handling: But as for the matter handled therein, I trust I have throughout maintained the truth: in the prosecuting whereof, if sometime I chance to miss, I say with Augustine, Nunquam errari tutius existimo, quàm cum in amore nimio veritatis, Lib. 1. de mendac. cap. 1. & reiectione nimia falsitatis erratur: I think a man can never more safely err, then when he erreth in the too much love of the truth, and the rejecting of falsehood. I have laboured in this work, to set down not only the chief and principal, but even the most, and in a manner all the controversies of religion, between us and the Papists, maintained this day: If any thing be missing, I say again with Augustine, Tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non fuisset, sive, quia ad rem de qua agitur, non pertinet, Defid. & operib. c. 27 sive quod tam leave esset, ut à quolibet redargui facillimè posset: I thought it to be such, as unto the which mine answer was not needful, either because it was not pertinent to the matter in hand, or else of so small moment, that every man might easily answer unto it. I have no more to say, but this: If thou findest thyself any thing profited or helped (good Christian Reader) by these simple labours of mine, give God the praise, and I will praise him with thee: but one thing, let me pray thee: Quisquis legis nihil reprehendas, August. nisi cum totum perlegeris, atque ita forte minus reprehends: Whosoever readest in this book, reprehend nothing, before thou hast read the whole, and so perhaps thou wilt be more sparing in rephending. The Lord give us all grace to love the truth, that they which know it, may live thereafter, and they which as yet know it not, may seek for it: and we all may embrace the Counsel of the wise man, to Buy the truth, but in no wise to sell it: that is by all possible means to labour for it: and having attained thereunto, for no earthly respect, for fear or favour to departed from it. The Lord God, jesus Christ, jehovah, Emmanuel, our blessed Saviour and Redeemer, who is the way, the truth, and the life, give us of his heavenly grace, that we may walk obediently in his ways, and constantly profess his truth, that in the end he may bring us to eternal life. Amen. Soli Deo immortali patri, Filio cum Spiritu sancto sit omnis honour & gloria. A PARTICULAR INDEX OR TABLE OF ALL THE CONTROVERSIES, WITH THEIR SEVERAL questions contained in this treatise. The contents of the first Book. This Book containeth seven Controversies. The first Controversy of the Scriptures hath seven questions. 1. quest. Of the number of the Canonical books of Scripture. pag. 2. 2. Of the authentical edition of Scripture. pag. 12. 3. Of the vulgar translation of Scripture, and of public prayers in the vulgar tongue. pag. 16. 4. Of the authority of Scripture. pag. 20. 5. Of the perspicuity and plainness of Scripture. pag. 23. 6. Of the interpretation of Scripture, 3. parts: 1. Of the divers senses of Scripture. pag. 26. 2. Who ought to expound Scripture. pag. 28. 3. Of the manner of expounding Scripture. pag. 30. 7. Of the perfection of Scripture, 3. parts: 1. Whether the Scripture be absolutely necessary. p. 33. 2. Whether they be sufficient. pag. 35. 3. Of unwritten traditions beside Scripture. pag. 38. The second general Controversy concerning the Church, containeth five questions. 1. quest. Of the definition of the Church, 2. parts: 1. Whether wicked men be members of the Church. pag. 43. 2. Whether the Church be invisible. pag. 46. 2. Whether the Church may err, 2. parts: 1. Whether the Catholic Church may err at all, or not. pag. 49. 2. Whether the visible Church upon earth may fall into Idolatry, or Apostasy. pag. 52. 3. Of the notes and marks of the Church: 1. Antiquity. pag. 55 2. Universality. pag. 57 3. Succession. pag. 59 4. Unity. pag. 60 5. Miracles. pag. 63 6. The gift of prophesying. pag. 66 4. Of the authority of the Church, 2. parts: 1. What authority it hath in matters of faith, and whether we are to believe in the Church. pag. 73 2. Of the ceremonies of the Church. pag. 76 5. Of the Church of Rome, two parts: 1. Whether it be the Catholic Church. pag. 78 2. Whether it be a true visible Church. pag. 79 The third controversy of general Counsels containeth eight questions. 1. quest. Whether Counsels be absolutely necessary. pag. 81 2. By whom general Counsels ought to be summoned. pag. 83 3. Of what persons Counsels ought to consist. pag. 84 4. Who ought to be the precedent in Counsels. pag. 88 5. Whether Counsels may err or not. pag. 90 6. Of the authority of Counsels. pag. 93 7. Whether they be above the Pope. pag. 95 8 Of the conditions requisite in general Counsels. pag. 98 The fourth controversy of the Bishop of Rome called the Pope, ten questions. 1. Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchical. pag. 100 2. Whether Peter were Prince of the Apostles, and assigned by Christ to be the head of the Church. pag. 105 3. Of Peter's being at Rome, two parts: 1. Whether Peter were at Rome. pag. 112 2. Whether Peter were Bishop of Rome. pag. 116 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter. pag. 118 5 Of the primacy of the See of Rome, six parts: 1. Whether the Bishop of Rome be above other Bishops. pag. 120 2. Concerning appeals made to Rome. pag. 122 3. Whether the Pope be subject to the judgement of any. pag. 124 4. Whether the Pope may be deposed from his Papacy. pag. 125 5. The original of the primacy of Rome. p. 128 6. Of the names and titles of the Bishop of Rome. pag. 131 6. quest. Whether the Pope of Rome, as likewise, whether the Church of Rome may err. pag. 134 7. quest. Of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, two parts: 1. Whether he may make laws to bind the conscience. pag. 141 2. Whether all Bishops do receive their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the Pope. p. 145 8 Of the temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, two parts: 1 Whether the Pope be above Kings and Emperors. pag. 148 2 Whether he be a temporal prince. pag. 151 9 Of the Pope's prerogative, 3. parts: 1 Of his power dispensative pag. 154 2 Of his power exemptive Ibid. 3 Of his power transcendent Ibid. 10. Of Antichrist, 9 parts: 1 Whether Antichrist shallbe one particular man pag. 155 2 Whether Antichrist be yet come, and how long he shall reign pag. 157 3 Concerning the name & character of Antichrist. p. 162 4 Of the generation of Antichrist pag. 168 5 Of the seat and place of Antichrist pag. 169 6 Of the doctrine of Antichrist pag. 172 7 The miracles of Antichrist pag. 176 8 The wars and kingdom of Antichrist pag. 179 9 Whether the Pope be Antichrist pag. 182 The fift controversy of the Clergy, six questions. 1. quest. Of the name of Clerks or Clergy men. pag. 190 2 Of the election of Bishops and Pastors, and of the election of the Pope. pag. 197 3 Of Ecclesiastical degrees and orders, 3. parts: 1 Of the seven degrees of popish priesthood. p. 199 2 Of the difference of Bishops and other Ministers. pag. 201 3 Of the office of Cardinals. pag. 205 4 Of the keys of the Church, 4. parts: 1 Wherein the authority of the keys consisteth pag. 206 2 To whom the authority of the keys ●s committed. p. 208 3 Whether the Pastors of the Church have absolute power to remit sins pag. 210 4 Of the effect of binding and losing pag. 212 5 Of the marriage of Ministers three parts: 1 The marriage of Ministers lawful pag. 214 2 Men may be admitted to Orders after second marriage pag. 219 3 Whether perpetual abstinence be required in married Ministers pag. 221 6 Of the maintenance of Ministers by tithes, two parts: 1 Whether the payment of tithes be necessary pag. 228 2 By what right tithes are due pag. 229 The sixth controversy of Monks and Friars, six questions. 1. quest. Of the original of Monks, and of their divers sects pag. 232 2 Of the difference between evangelical Counsels and precepts pag. 236 3 Of vows in general, three parts: 1 Whether it be lawful for Christians to vow. pag. 239 2 Wherein lawful vows consist pag. 241 3 Whether voluntary vows properly be any part properly of the worship of God pag. 242 4 Of Monastical vows, 3. parts: 1 Of the vow of voluntary poverty. pag. 244 2 The vow of Monastical obedience. p. 246 3 Of the vow of chastity pag. 247 5 Of Monastical persons, four parts: 1 Whether the younger sort ought to profess Monkery pag. 251 2 Whether children may be made Monks without their parent's consent pag. 253 3 Whether married persons may with mutual consent become votaries pag. 254 4 Whether marriage not consummate, may without consent be broken for the vow of continency. pag. 256 6 Of the rules and discipline of Monastical life, four parts: 1 Of the solitary & austere life of Monks. pag. 257 2 Of the habit and shaving of Monks. pag. 259 3 Of their Canonical hours pag. 261 4 Of the maintenance of Monks. pag. 262 The seventh general controversy of the Civil Magistrate, four questions. 1 Of the authority of the Prince in Ecclesiastical matters, four parts: 1 His authority over Ecclesiastical persons pag. 266 2 Over Ecclesiastical goods pag. 267 3 In causes Ecclesiastical pag. 268 4 Whether the Prince may be said to be the head of the Church in his kingdom pag. 271 2 The authority of the Prince in punishing heretics: 1 Whether the judgement of heresy any way belongeth to the Prince pag. 274 2 How an heretic is to be tried pag. 275 3 How heretics are to be examined and punished Ibid. 3 Whether the positive laws of Princes do bind in conscience 4 Whether the Prince may be excommunicate of the Pope THE SECOND BOOK CONTAINETH SIX CONTROVERSIES. The first controversy, which is the eight in the whole, is concerning Angels, three questions. 1. quest. Of the hierarchy of Angels, 2. parts: 1 Of the degrees of Angels. p. 291 2 Whether Michael be the Prince of the Angels pag. 292 2 Of the ministery of Angels, three parts: 1 Of their external ministery in the protection of the Church pag. 293 2 Of their spiritual office about our prayers pag. 295 3 Whether Angels know our hearts pag. 296 3 Of the worship of Angels, 2 parts: 1 Of their worship in general pag. 299 2 Of the invocation of Angels pag. 300 The ninth general controversy concerning Saints departed, two parts. 1. part. Of those that suffer punishment being departed, two questions: 1 Of Limbus Patrum, and of the apparition of Samuel pag. 302.305 2 Of Purgatory, four parts. 1 Whether there be any Purgatory pag. 307 2 Of the circumstances of Purgatory pag. 310 3 Of prayer for the dead. p. 312 4 Of burials & funerals p. 315 2. part. Of the Saints that are in joy and bliss after their departure. 9 quest. 1. quest. Of the blessed estate of the Saints, and of Canonizing of Saints pag. 320 2 Of the adoration of Saints. 3. parts. 1 Whether they are to be adored: and of oaths & vows made to Saints. pag. 325 2 Of the divers kinds of worship pag. 330 3 Of the kissing of holy men's feet pag. 331 3 Of the invocation of Saints, three parts: 1 Whether prayers are to be made unto them. pag. 332 2 Whether they pray for us pag. 334 3 Whether they understand our prayers. p. 335 4 Of the relics of Martyrs, four parts: 1 Of the worshipping of Relics. pag. 338. 2 Translation of Relics. pag. 340. 3 Preserving of Relics. pag. 342. 4 Miracles of Relics. pag. 343. 5. question, 1. Of Images, four parts: 1 Of the difference of Idols & Images. p. 347 2 Whether it be lawful to have Images. pag. 348 3 Whether to be worshipped. pag. 350 4 What manner of worship it should be. p. 353 2. Of the sign of the Cross, 4. parts: 1 Of the Cross whereon Christ suffered. p. 355 2 Of the image of the Crosse. pag. 357 3 Of the sign of the Crosse. pag. 359 4 Of the power or efficacy of the Crosse. p. 360 5 An appendix concerning the name of jesus. pag. 361 6. quest. Of Temples and Churches, five parts: 1 Of the situation and form of Churches. pag. 3●2 2 Of the end and use of Churches, three parts. pag. 365 1 Whether they are built for sacrifice. pag. 365 2 Whether they be holy places in themselves. pag. 367 3 Whether they may be dedicated to saints. pag. 368 3 Of the adorning of Churches. pag. 370 4 Of the dedication of Churches. pag. 372. 5 Of things hallowed for Churches. pag. 373 7 Of Pilgrimages and Processions, and of the holy land. pag. 375 8 Of holy and festival days, five parts: 1 Of holy days in general. 378 2 Of the Lord's day. 379 3 Of the festival days of Christ and the holy Ghost. pag. 386 4 Of the festivities of Saints. 1 The number of them. 2 The manner of keeping them. pag. 388 3 Of their vigils. p. 391 5 Of Lent and Imber days. pag. 392 9 Of the Virgin Mary. 1 Whether she were conceived without sin. pag. 398 2 Whether she vowed virginity. pag. 400 3 Of her assumption into heaven. pag. 401 4 Of the worship due unto her. pag. 402 5 Of the merits of the virgin, and of the ave Maria. pag. 404 The tenth controversy hath but one question concerning the mediation, and intercession of Christ. pag. 406. The eleventh controversy concerning the Sacraments in general, three questions. 1. quest. Of the definition and nature of a Sacrament. 1 Of the efficient cause, or institutor of the sacrament. pag. 408 2 Of the form & manner of consecration. pag. 409 3 Of the instrumental cause, which is the Minister. pag. 413 4 Of the use, whether the Sacraments be seals. pag. 414 2. quest. Of the efficacy and virtue of the Sacraments. 1 Whether the Sacraments confer grace. p. 416 2 Of the difference of the old and new sacraments. pag. 418 3 Of the character imprinted by the Sacraments. pag. 419 4 Of the necessity of the sacraments. pag. 420 3 Of the number and order of the Sacraments. 1 Of the number of them, pag. 42● 2 Of their degrees amongst themselves, pag. 424. The twelfth controversy of the sacrament of Baptism, eight questions. 1 Of the name and definition of Baptism. pag. 426 2 Of the parts, that is, the matter and form of Baptism. pag. 427 3 Of the necessity of Baptism, and whether baptism may by any other way be supplied. pag. 428 4 Whether women and lay men ought to baptise. pag. 432 5 Of the baptism of infants, and whether they have faith, and of the baptizing of bells. pag, 434.436 6. Of the effects of Baptism. 1 Whether our sins be clean taken away in baptism. pag. 436 2 Whether baptism be only for sins past. pag. 438 3 Of the privileges of Baptism. pag. 439 7. Of the difference between the baptism of Christ, and the baptism of john p. 441 8. Of the ceremonies and rites of baptism. pag. 442 The thirteenth controversy of the Eucharist or Lords Supper, two parts. 1▪ part. Of the sacrament itself. 10. questions. 1 Of the Real presence. pag. 445 2 Of Transubstantiation. pag. 455 3 Of the reservation of the Sacrament. pag. 459 4 Of the elements of bread and wine. pag. 461 5 Of the words of consecration. pag. 463 6 Of the proper effect of the Lords Supper. pag. 465 7 Of the manner in receiving the communion, & whether it ought to be received fasting. pag. 467 8 Of receiving in one kind. pag. 468 9 Of the adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 472 10 Whether the wicked receive the body of Christ. pag. 473. 2. part. Of the sacrifice of the Mass. 8. quest. 1 Of the divers representations of the death of Christ. pag. 475 2 Of the sacrifice. 1 The name of the Mass. pag. 476 2 Of the sacrifice itself. pag. 477 3 Of the name of priests. pag. 481 3 Of the virtue and efficacy of the Mass. pag. 483 4 For whom the Mass is available. pag. 484 5 Of private Masses. pag. 485 6 Of the manner of saying Mass. pag. 487 7 Of the idolatrous ceremonies of the Mass. pag. 488 8 Of the form, which is the Canon of the Mass. pag. 490 THE CONTENTS OF THE THIRD BOOK. The fourteenth controversy of Penance, nine questions. 1 Of the name of penance. pag. 501 2 Whether it be a Sacrament. pag. 502 3 Whether any other sacrament of repentance beside baptism. pag. 504 4 Of the material parts of Baptism. 1 Of the matter and form. pag. 504 2 Of the three parts. Contrition, pag. 505. Confession, pag. 505. Satisfaction. pag. 505. 3 Whether repentance go before faith. pag. 506 5 Of Contrition. pag. 507 6 Of Auricular confession. pag. 510 7 Of Satisfaction. 1 Whether the punishment remain after the sin is pardoned. pag. 514 2 Whether a man may satisfy the wrath of God by his works. ibid. 3 Whether one man may satisfy for another. pag. 516 8 Of penal injunctions. 1 Whether penal works be necessary to repentance. pag. 517 2 By whom they are to be enjoined. pag. 518 3 Of pardons and indulgences. pag. 519 9 Of the ceremonies and circumstances of Penance. pag. 522 The fifteenth controversy of Matrimony, seven questions. 1 Whether Matrimony be a sacrament. pag, 524 2 Of Divorcement. 1 Whether there be any other causes of divorce beside fornication. pag. 525 2 Whether marriage be lawful after divorcement for adultery. pag. 528 3 Of the degrees prohibited in marriage three parts: 1 Of the supputation of degrees. pag. 529 2 Whether any of the degrees prohibited in Moses law, may be dispensed with. pag. 531 3 Whether any other degrees by human law may be prohibited. pag. 533 4 Of the impediments of marriage. pag. 535 5 Of the comparison between virginity, and the married estate. pag. 536 6 Of the times of marriage prohibited. pag. 537 7 Of the ceremonies of marriage. pag. 539 The sixteenth controversy, three questions. 1 Of Confirmation. 1 Whether 〈◊〉 be a sacrament. pag. 541 2 Of the matter and form thereof. pag. 542 3 Of the efficacy and virtue. pag. 543 4 Of the rites and ceremonies. pag. 544 2 Of Orders. 1 Whether it be a Sacrament. pag. 545 2 Of the efficacy. pag. 547 3 Of the ceremonies. pag. 548 3 Of extreme Unction. 1 Whether it be a Sacrament. pag. 549 2 Of the virtue and efficacy. pag. 550 3 Of the minister and the ceremonies. pag. 551 The seventeenth controversy of the benefits of our redemption, three parts. 1 part▪ Of Predestination. 1 Of the reprobation of the wicked. pag. 553 2 Our election free without respect to our works. pag. 555 3 Of the certainty of predestination. pag 556 2 part▪ Of our Vocation. 1 Of sin. 1 Of Original sin. pag. 558 2 The difference of sins. pag. 559 3 Of venial sins. pag. 560 4 Whether all sins be remissible. pa. 561 5 God no author of sin. pag. 562 6 Of the works of the not regenerate. 563 2 Of the law, 5. parts: 1 Whether it be possible in this life to keep the Laws. pag. 564 2 Whether just men do sin. pag. 566 3 Of the works of supererogation. p. 567 4 God not to be served for fear. pag. 568 5 Of the use of the Law. pag. 570 3. part. Of justification. 1. Of free-will. 1 Whether it be utterly lost. pag. 571 2 Of the power of free will in man. Ibid. 2. Of Faith. 1 What faith is. pag. 576 2 Of the diverse kinds of faith. pag. 578 3 Charity not the form of justifying faith. pag. 579 4 How men are justified by faith. pag. 581 5 Whether faith be meritorious. Ibid. 6 Whether faith be in man's power. pag. 582 7 Whether it may be lost. Ibid. 8 Whether wicked men have faith. pag. 583 3. Of good works. 1 Which be the good works of Christians. pag. 584 2 Whether there be any good works without faith. Ibid. 3 The use of good works. 1 Whether they be applicatory. pag. 585 2 Expiatory. pag. 586 3 Meritorious. Ibid. 4 Of the distinction of merits. pag. 589 5 The manner of meriting. pag. 590 4. Of justification. 1 Of preparative works to justification. pag. 591 2 Of two kinds of justification. pag. 592 3 Of inherent justice. pag. 593 4 Of justification only by faith. pag. 594 The 18. controversy concerning the humanity of Christ, five questions. 1 Of the ubiquity or omnipresence of the body of Christ pag. 596 2 Whether Christ increased in knowledge pag. 599 3 Of the manner of our saviours birth pag. 601 4 Whether Christ suffered in soul pag. 602 5 Whether Christ descended in soul to Hell to deliver the patriarchs pag. 605 6 Of the place of Hell pag. 607 The 19 controversy concerning matters belonging to the divine nature of Christ, three questions. 1 Whether Christ be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself pag. 610 2 Whether Christ be our Mediator as man only pag. 612 3 Whether Christ merited for himself pag. 614 The 20. controversy of Christ's coming to judgement, three questions. 1 Whether the Gospel be already preached through the world pag. 616 2 Whether Henoch and Elias shall come before the day of judgement pag. 618 3 Of the grievous persecutions toward the end of the world pag. 620 4 The manner of Christ's coming to judgement: 1 Whether the Saints shall be judges pag. 622 2 Of the place of Christ's appearing pag. 623 3 The manner, whether with the sign of the Crosse. Ibid. 4 Of the time of his appearing pag. 624 FINIS. Faults escaped. In the Prefa. p. 5. lin. 18. read nosse. lin. 36. legeritis. In the book. p. 4. which our, p. 7. lin. 42. pru●● p. 13. l. 12. Simmachus. p. 16. l. 5. interprete●. p. 21. l. 18. Iddo. p. 23. l. 25. fift. p. 29. l. 27. so. p. 32. l. 40. prae●dentis lingu●▪ p. 35. l. 26. there is. p. 39 l. 3. are judged. p. 46. l. 26. proposition. p. 115. l. 24. evasion p. 125. l. ●8. Pighius: the jesuite. p 129. l 7 the turre cremata, lin. 40. for heresy, p. 130. l. 37. he shou●● p. 146. l. 34. they were. p. 156. l. 18 the beast. p. 171. l. 11 who should. p. 179 l 29 deal Agrippa. p. 197 l. ●7. deal not. p. 200. l. 20. for unable, read other p. 201. l. 16▪ than readers. p. 203. l. 7, 8, 9, 10 deal p. 205. l. 11. their especial. p. 216. l. 19 for, say we, read, saith he. p. 220. l. 23. from having. p. 248. l. 6 he would not. l. 13. not caring. p. 252. l. 3. for not one to none. p. 253. l. 3. primus. p. 276. l. 41. his posy p. 329. l. 4. for, or alio, read oratio, p. 331 l. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 399. l. 25. absolutely. p. 442.23. pugnaciter. p. 462. l. 4. good friday. p. 465. l. 5. read, was not, without the colon. p. 468. l. 31. read, is not of p. 471. l. 24. the counsel. p. 500 l. 25. permisit p. 517. l. 35 in punishing and chastising. p. 522. l. 6. prescriptions, for presumptions. p. 530. l. 18. read epist. jud. 14. p. 538. l. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. guerebh. p. 592. l. 34. read merc●s fidei coeptae erit fides aucta.