A General View of Papistry
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 shown 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 Rhemistes. annot. in 1. Johan. 2. Sect. 9. Bellarmine. 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 Arians, Pelagians, Donatists, because they were not long to continue, suddenly brake out, and suddenly again were extinguished. But Papistry, being the prop and pillar of Antichrists 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 pretense 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 loose: when no doubt Antichrist should begin to show him self to the world. Cōcerning this space of a thousand years, there are two probable opinions: some think they are to begin immediately after our Savior Christ's time, and so counting a thousand years, all which time Satan must be bound, then Antichrist should begin to appear. Thus John Wycliffe 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 loose, when he raged with opē mouth like a Lion against the Church and Saints of God: of this opinion was Walter Brute somewhat after Wicliffes time: who by this means maketh the Prophesy of Daniel of 1290. days, 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 Wycliffe, whē the great rabble of Monks and Friers 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 frō other Churches to that sea: and to set the better color 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 Dominic Friers brought in the same time, 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 Jesuit saith, that the authors of their sects and heresies cā not be shown.
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 Berēgarius about pope Hildebrands time▪ that mightily impugned the gross opinion of Trāsubstantiatiō. Robertus Gallus 1291. Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, who was called malleus Romanorū, 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, which ceased not to cry out against the abhominable vices and erroneous opinions of the Church of Rome. Wherefore it is a great untruth, which the Jesuit doth so stiffly avouch that we cannot 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, then our Savior 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 Savior, and his Apostles.
Of Vniuersalitie. 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 honorable title then the name of Catholics: for it is manifest Act. 11.26. that this name was used in the Apostles time, and by the Apostles them selves 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 honorable 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 (ô 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, & 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 Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, 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. Bellarmine. cap. 7. nota. 4.
We answer. First, the truth is not always to be measured by the judgment 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 sprong up then so. And you need not brag of your universality now: for the Turk (I trow) hath a larger dominion then the Pope, and Muhammadism 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, then 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 religiō. 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 souls 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 werry and destroy the inhabitants, to use them as horse and beasts, to plough, to carry, to dignity? 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 milions 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 Jesuit putteth in, to make the Church universal, do help us very well: the first is, that it is not necessary, that all coūtries wholly should profess the Christiā 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 it self over the whole world.
The third Note of Succession.
THey make great boast of the long and perpetual successiō of their Popes [error 20] from the Apostles for the space of these 1500. years and more: condemning all Churches, which cannot show the like order of succession. Bellarmine. cap. 8. Rhemist. annot. in Ephe. 4. ver. 13.
We answer. First, they cannot show such an entier and perpetual successiō, without any interruptiō 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 besides: as in Cōstātinople, 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 Jesuit 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 shown, 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 Jesuit, 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 cannot 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, whē he had alleged succession against heretics, concludeth thus: Quanquam non tantū nos de istis documentis praesumamus, quā de Scriptures sanctis: although (saith he) we presume not so much upon these documēts 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 them selves, 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 Councils. 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. Was not here great amity and love think you, amongst the Popes?
Another notable example of their unity we have in Pope Urbanus time the 6. against whom stood up a contrary Pope in France named Clement : it is worth the noting, what coyle these two popes kept: between whō many battles were fought, many thousands slain. Pope Urbane 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 Vrbans soldiers, at his commandment, 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 Emperors army, laid siege to Rome, and sacked it: the soldiers brake 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 him self. The soldiers daily that lay at the siege, made iestes of the Pope: sometime they had one riding like the Pope with a whore behind him, sometimes he blessed, sometime he cursed: sometime with one voice they would call him Antichrist. See here is their Catholic obedience to their chief Bishop. 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 Jesuit, that the decrees of Popes do consent together? The Council of Basil, and Constance before that decreed, that the Pope should be subject to general Councils: but this Canon was afterward reversed, and now generally the Papists hold the contrary, that the Pope is above Councils.
Let us see the consent of their writers: Bellarmine. lib. 1. de verbo. cap. 12. maintaineth against Lyranus, Driedo, Genebrard, and others, that Judith was in Manasseh 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 everywhere the Jesuit 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 Jesuit 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, him self 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. Bellarmine 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 her self, with the Apostolic traditions and doctrine, de 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 virgins 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 oth. 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 Dominic Friers, who affirmed that she was conceived in sin, and the Franciscans, that held the contrary. 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 Bellarmine is not ashamed to say, that an hundred several sects are sprong amongst us. cap. 10. lib. 4. de Eccles.
1 We say with S. Paul: oportet heresies 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 paganes. Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam: hostem quippe, quem patimur, illi non patiuntur: Let them not boast of their concord, and cast in our teeth the dissention of Christians: the 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 anything by their agreement: for he hath sure hold enough of them already, consenting all in Idolatry. But amongst Christians he laboreth to hinder the truth by discord, because he cannot otherwise withdraw them frō the true Religion. Hearken now (ô 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 dissention 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 Jesuit, but he shall never prove ten. He might have bethought him self of a full hundred of sects amongst his own darlings the Monks and Friers, 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 egerlie 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 Dominickes: nor yet to the pronouncing of ech other heretics, as Eugenius your Pope was condemned as an heretic in the Council of Basil.
The fifth 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, then they to be holy men and elected of God, that do them: The Magicians wrought many strange things in Egypt, cōtending a great while with Moses: Antichrist shall come working with signs and wonders. 2. Thessal. 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 cousoners. 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: Remoueantur ista vel mendacia fallacium hominum, vel portenta mendacium spirituum. Away with those miracles, which are either cousoning tricks of deceitful men, or wonders of lying spirits.
First, Monkish fables are not a whit dainty with our Romish Catholics, their Legendes are full of them: As that of Berinus, how being in the midst of the sea, sailing into France, having forgotten somewhat at home, 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 Beuerley, 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 Jesuit maketh of them.
Secondly, it is out of doubt, that some of them were well practiced 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 Balaam's asse: for the asse 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 Sylvester the 2. was advanced to the Papacie 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, and there be buried where the horse left it of their own accord. How much such diabolical practices are favored by the sea of Rome, may appear by this one example, which we will now touch: In Pope Adrian’s days, not many years ago, there was a most abhominable thing practiced in Rome, even under the Popes 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, and so sacrificed him: And this being done, the sickness somewhat slaked. Call ye this the Church of God, that suffereth such heathenish and abhominable 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 Henries days, there was a monstrous Idol called the Rood of grace, which was made so with wiers and ingins, 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, then should his jaws go merilie: This abhominable Idol by the Lord Cromwell's means was broken down, and the engines and parts thereof shown at Paul's Cross. Such a like thing was the blood of Hales, which they made the people believe was some of Christ's blood, but in the ende it was found to be but the blood of a drake, and shown likewise at Paul's Cross. Fox. pag. 1188. At Calis in the Sepulcher, 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 Henries commandment, they found three white counters sodred in the stone with the top-bone of a sheep's tail. pag. 1223. A thousand such forged devises the Papists had, which they are not ashamed to maintain for strange and holy miracles. By this that hath been shown, 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: Modo caro caeci non aperit oculos miraculo domini, at cor caecum aperit oculos sermon 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, 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 shown 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 it self 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 lien the space of eight months, being almost eaten up with lice, and in such misery, that he cursed his parents that bare him. This man through the teaching and the prayers of the Martyr, felt such comfort in the Gospel, that he became very patient in his affliction: and after his conversion this strange thing was wrought upon him: that whereas before he was so full of lice, that he might have plucked out twelve at once between two of his fingers, the next day he had not one.
Now, because the Jesuit 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. A notable and strange miracle, which is crediblie 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 fil a large volume: And by the grace of God, hereafter we may have occasion in another treatise of purpose, more at large to publish them. But these arguments we do not chiefly 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 sixte Note of the gift of Prophecying.
[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 Malachi : 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 & conditiō of the Church to the end of the world: Som of which are already accomplished, some to be fulfilled in their seasō: In these prophecies we must rest & content our selves, not looking for new revelations. 3. There have been Prophets amongst the heathen, out of the Church of God: they also can bring forth diverse old prophecies: so that if the issue lay in this point, they might as well contend to be the Church of God. Astiages dreamed 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, 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 arriuall in those places: Their Zemes, that is, their devils, which they worshipped as God's, 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.
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 Sibill 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 veil of the temple should be rent, & 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. 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 thenselves 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 menbers 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 judgment should be refused: & Balaam is set forth as an example of a false Prophet & wicked mā: Ep. Jude. 11: so neither is this gift an infallible mark of the Church of God, wheresoerver 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 Savior 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 euangelicam, the rule of the Gospel: belike making himself another Christ, and so bringing in another Gospel: for to all Christ's Disciples Christ's Gospel • is sufficient. 2. But if they have any prophecies of credit, which they can show, they are such, as are reported, of Pope Sylvester 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, 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 Prophetisses, as Hildegardis, anno 1146. likewise Briget, Catherine Seuensis: whom Bellarmine reckoneth up amongst others that wrought miracles. cap. 14. but concerning these we will answer, as the Jesuit doth for Sibilla a Prophetisse amongst the heathē: 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 Prophetisse of the Church rather than of the heathen. cap. 15. so we say, that if those three abovenamed were Prophetisses, 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 Friers, 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, drawing in their necks like doves. Briget prophesied of the Church of Rome, that it should be as a body condemned of a judge, to have the skin flayne 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, m • keth my spirit to rejoice in the Lord. All these things we see now accomplished: the sects of Friers 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 Prophetisse 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 Friers, 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 prophetisse was afterward justly met withal, and worthily suffered for her demerits, with all her accomplices: amongst the which, Fisher B. of Rochester was one, who thereupon was imprisoned, and forfayted 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 reuolutis annis deo respondebitis: after an hundred years you shall give account of this your doing unto God? Likewise Jerome 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 Sauonarola 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 wast 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: this Walter lived in king Richards 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 Jesuit 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 over-spread 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. Sayth he, the note or the mark must be better known and more notorious, then 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 Jesuit 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 Galatians 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 labored 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 Galatians, 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, then any other cause, and do not continue in it, but do submit themselves to be reformed by the word, it ceaseth not for all that to be a Church. So the Corinthians referred themselves wholly and their opinions to the judgment and determination of the Apostle. Hitherto our adversaries have said nothing against us: now we will say somewhat for our selves.
The Protestants.
1 FOr the sufficiency of these Notes, we would desire no better arguments, then 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, then which is the true Church. Thirdly, these marks cannot be absent from the Church, but do always accompany it, and it is no longer a true Church, then it hath those marks.
2 We are able out of the Scriptures to prove these marks, which may stand instead 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 it self 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 carkas, 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. Fifthly, 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 shown, that neither the Church doth give authority to the word of God, but doth take her authority from thē: 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 it self: 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: 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 Basil 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. Proued 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 swerve from Christ's precepts, neither impose anything 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 chronologie 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 Basil 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 then 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 Basil, that concluded, it was an article of the Christian faith to believe the superiority of the council, 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: 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: Linguae sonos, quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicēt, pacto quodā societatis sibi instituere possunt: Quib. autē sacris diuinitati congruerent, voluntatem dei sequuti sunt, qui recte sapuerunt: Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem iustitiae pietati{que} hominum. Men, saith he, may devise among themselves what language they will use to express their mind: But howe 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 fathers 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 seruo 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 spake 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 necessarylie 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 cannot believe in that which is visible & seen, for it is against the nature of faith.
3. Augustine saith, sciendum est, quod ecclesiam credere, non tamen in ecclesiam credere debemus, quia ecclesia non est deus sed domus dei: De tēpore serm. 131. We must know, that we are to believe there is a Church, not in the Church, for the Church is not God, but only the house of God.
THE SECOND PARTE OF THE QUESTION concerning the ceremonies of the Church.
The Papists.
THey do hold that the Church of God may use and bless diverse 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 annointed, 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 myraculous gifts are now ceased. Secondly, it was not the oil whereby their sins were forgiven them, neither was it applied to that ende, 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 offense, 1. Corinth. 10.32. But to whom, that hath but a little feeling of religion, is not the abhominable 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 fitter occasion to entreat afterward, when we come to the several controversies.
4 All things ought to be done to edifying, 1. Corinth. 14. verse. 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, altarclothes, rings, swords, and an infinite company besides: 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 beggerlie and ragged relics and ceremonies. Fulk. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 1. Beza. lib. confess. de eccles. articul. 18.19.20.
The fifth 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 ROMANE 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 then 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, then 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 it self 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. verse. 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. verse. 8. But so was never the Roman faith, which is now professed, as we have shown 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 prophesiyng: 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 Popes 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 Lord's 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? Apocalypse. 17.9. But of this matter we shall of purpose entreat afterward. Ergo. they are not a true visible Church.
THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS.
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 sortes, 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 Prouincial, when as the Churches of one Province do assemble into one place to consult of Religion.
There may be two especial occasions of Councils: 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 Arius, 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 Councils, 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 Councils are these, First, whether general Councils be absolutely necessary. Secondly, by whom they ought to be called. Thirdly, of what persons they ought to consist. Fourthly, who should be the president of the Council. Fifthly, concerning the authority of them. Sixthly, whether they may err or not. Seventhly, whether they are above the Pope. Eighthly, of the conditions to be observed in general Councils: of these in order.
THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING the necessity of Councils.
The assertion of the Papists.
THey seem in words to affirm, that General Councils 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 Councils, either general or particular, are of necessity to be had. Bellarmine de council. lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be marvelled at, that they should so much stand for Councils, seeing they might use a far more compendious way, in referring all to the determination of the Pope, whom they boldly, but very fondly affirm, that he cannot err.
Although they seem not to lay a necessity upon General Councils, yet in truth they do contrary: for they allow no Councils at all, without the Popes 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 Zurich. 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 disanulled, it must be done by the like Synod. Bellarmine de cōcil. 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 Councils are an wholesome means for the repressing and reforming, both of errors in Religion, and corruption in manners: and that true general Councils 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 mā 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 seignorie, without any further delay, or expectation, by the advice and Counsaile 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 Basil, where it was decreed, that the Pope was subject to the Councils, Panormitane a stiff champion on the Popes side, would have the decree stayed till the return of the Princes Ambassadors: But Arelatensis that worthy Cardinal stepped up, and shown 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 Joshua saith, I and my house will serve the Lord, 24. verse. 15. Wherefore the Prince may and ought 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 Zurich 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 prosperouslie 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, vt aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando, nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit, &c. 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 Councils ought to be called.
The Papists.
THey do generally hold, that general Councils ought only to be called and appointed by the Popes authority, or his assignment: their goodly reasons [error 30] are these.
1 Councils 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, &c. Christ will not be present with them, unless we send up to Rome for license, that two or three may come together.
2 General Councils 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 Popes spiritual jurisdiction which he falsely challengeth, was at any time greater then 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 Basil 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. Agayne, 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 Councils should be ruled at the Popes 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 Councils, 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 Councils 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 Councils 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 Basil, that if Popes only should call Councils, 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 Councils. We read of four only Councils of the Apostles, say the fathers of Basil (for this also is their argument) the first was for the choosing of Matthias. Act. 1. congregate at the commandment of Christ, who enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem. The second. Act. 6. congregate by the twelve, not Peter only, 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 iussu imperatoris disputando inter se contulisse. Breuicul. 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 Councils, the Princes [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 consultatiue 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 Episcopy pastores sunt (saith the Jesuit) neque laici neque ecclesiastici quicunque: Only Bishops are pastors, and none other of the Clergy besides, 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 Jesuit 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 countrymen of Reims 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 Jesuit 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 Councils, is not proper to Pastors, but common to the whole Church: whereupon we deny, that it is Proprium pastorum munus, suffragia ferre in concilijs: It is not the proper duty of Pastors, to give voices and make decrees in Councils.
3 By the Jesuits argument, the fathers of Basil 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 Ministry, 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 Ministry is laid upon the rest of the Clergy, that therefore they ought not to be excluded from Councils.
Secondly, Panormitane in the Council of Basil 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 judgment 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 iudicial power in the Church, they also ought to have a determining voice in Councils.
Thirdly, Lodouicus the Prothonotarie 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. Lodouicus 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 Councils: 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 Basil.
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, ought 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 amplie proved in the Council of Basil, 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 Arians, 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 Bishoppe 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, then 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 Apollos. 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: Lodouicus the Prothonotarie, first thus rashly and fondly gave his verdicte in the Council of Basil, that there was no argument to be gathered of the Acts of the Apostles, whose examples were more to be maruayled at, then to be followed: But to this Arelatensis replied, that he would stay himself most upon the Apostles doings: for what, saith he, is more comely for us to follow, then the doctrine and customs of the primitive Church? And Aeneas Siluius reporteth (who writeth of the acts of that Council) that all men impugned this saying of Lodouicus, that the Apostles were not to be followed, as a blasphemy.
Wherefore the Jesuit 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 Jesuit 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 lay-men as to Bishops, it behooveth 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, then that ecclesiastical persons should lay yokes upon Christians against their willes, 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 nether 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 judgment we heard before alleged by Arelatensis, that seeing the iudicial power of the keys is committed to the whole Church, to Bishops, to Priests, they all ought to be entertained in general Councils.
THE FOURTH QUESTION, WHO OVGHT to be the president and chief moderator in Councils.
The Papists.
[error 32] WIth one whole consent they all agree and hold, that the Pope only ought to have the chief place in Councils, 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 oues meas, feed my sheep, and he is called and saluted in Councils 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 recompenceth a threefold denial, with a threefold confession, lest that his tongue should be less serviceable to love, then it was to fear: so then, by this fathers judgment, 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 Jesuit 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 Jesuit. 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, then Priests are to Bishops, and Bishops to their Metropolitans, who cannot be said to be their sheep, though they have some preeminence 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 oues 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, ought to be president 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 Basil 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 eccesiasticall: And it appeareth by the ancient practice of the godly kings in Israel and Judah. 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 him self was president 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 Councils: As in the Nicene, Constantine the great was present: in the Council of Chalcedon, Martianus: in the Constantinopolitane 3. Constantine the Emperor: in the Constantinopl. 4. Basilius the Emperor was present. Is it to be thought that these noble Emperors, were at the Councils as inferiors or underlings? or had they not the chief places? then sure they were presidents: for in the Council the chief place belongeth to the president. 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 Soueraigntie 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 then 500. Bishops of both sides, Marcellinus was appointed to be moderator of that disputatiō: who diverse 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. breuicul. collation.
THE FIFTE QUESTION WHETHER Councils may err or not.
The Papists.
[error 33] THey are not all agreed, what to determine of this matter; some affirm that General Councils can in no wise err, although the consent of the Pope be wanting: thus the fathers in Basil concluded, who is it, say they, that will prefer a sinful man before an undefiled Church? But Bellarmine more the Popes friend then so, holdeth, that even general Councils 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 anything be concluded: and therefore they doubt not to say, that the Council of Basil erred, though it had the consent of the Popes 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 Jesuit goeth further, that particular Councils 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 Basil, that he would prefer the judgment of the Cardinals of Rome before all the world. This then is the Jesuits opinion, that no Councils 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.
The Protestants.
WE doubt not to say, that Councils have erred, and may err, presuming anything besides the warrant of God's word, and that neither universal or particular Councils 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 Councils that erred, as that assembly in Ahab's days of 400. Prophets, who were all deceived: the Jesuit thus answereth, that it was an assembly of prophets, not of priests: as though priests were more piuiledged 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 Lord's Prophets, and pastors, and ministers assemble, that there they will hear the Lord's voice: which the Pope in his Councils 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 Jesuit 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 Jesuit 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 judgment, because it was tumultuous & disorderly, & done by suborning of false witnesses: and this saith the Jesuit, 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 Councils 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 everywhere impugn the traditions and decrees of the Elders, as Mark. 7. which our Savior 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 councils have erred: we let pas those which the Jesuit himself confesseth to have erred, as the third Coūcel of Antioch, where Athanasius was condemned, and the Arian heresy approved: the Council of Arimine, where the same heresy was furthered: the fourth Ephesine approving Eutiches heresy: These Councils, 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 Popes breast.
But we will bring an instance of such Councils as the Pope allowed, and yet by the papists own confession erred. In the Council of Naeo-Cesarea, 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, modo non sit vxoratus, so he be not wiued: 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 circumscriptable.
In the Council of Rome under Pope Stephan the 7. all the acts of Formosus his predecessor were revoked: And in the Council of Rauenna under John. 9. Pope, Formosus acts were established, and Stephans decrees abrogate.
Lastly, in the Council of Constance, they are excommunicate, that receive the sacrament in both kinds: the Council of Basil on the contrary side permitteth and giveth leave to the Bohemians to use both kinds. One of these Councils, must needs err, & both of them were confirmed by the Popes: the Council of Constance by Martin the 5. the Council of Basil by Felix 5. By this induction of many particulars we infer and conclude, that Councils even approved by the Pope, may and have erred,
4. Lastly, Augustine's opinion is this, that provincial Councils ought to give place to general: Et ipsa plenaria priora posteriorib. emendari, and the former general Councils 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, Councils 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 Councils must be amended: si a veritate deuiatum fit, if they swerve from the truth, de baptism. lib 2. cap. 3. Wherefore we conclude, that Councils may err.
THE SIXT QUESTION CONCERNING THE AVthority of general Councils, 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 Councils: for [error 34] they say, that the authority of the scripture depēdeath not in himself, of Church, Pope, or Councils: 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 it self) 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 shown 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 Councils are of the same authority, dist. 20. can. decretales. And Greg. 1. epist. 24. saith, he doth reverence the 4. general Councils, 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 Councils 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 Councils, 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,
2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as fōdly alleged, where it was decreed (saith the Jesuit) that y e 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 Councils, 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 seeth 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 Councils, as was in the Apostles, we will also believe them.
The Protestants.
WE do firmly believe that neither the Church nor Councils 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 Councils 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 promptnes, & 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, to believe that the Pope is the head of the Church. The fathers of Basil more modest then so, concluding that it was an article of faith to believe that Councils were above the Pope, do use this reason: those things, say they, which we allege for the superiority of general Councils are gathered out of the sayings of our Savior Christ. 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. Councils 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 Nicaenū tanquā praeiudicaturus proferre concilium, scripturarum authoritatibus, &c. Neither must I allege the Nicene Council, nor you the Arimine, I am neither bound to the one, nor you to the other, let the matter be tried by Scripture, cont. Maximu. Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this fathers sentence therefore, no man is bound of necessity to be tied to Councils, but the Scripture only is absolutely to be believed.
THE SEAVENTH QUESTION, WHETHER Councils 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 Basil, 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 dooer against John Hus, stiffly maintaineth the authority of Councils above the Pope. Other Papists more favorable 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 Jesuit, 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 Jesuit, 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 Councils. 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, fil up the measure of iniquity of your forefathers: say with Pope Athanasius, that the people of the world are the partes 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 then light: with Pope Calixtus in the Council of Reims, 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 Ezekiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sower 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 Basil 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 then 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 Jesuit, ex Aenea Syluio. Better arguments they have none for the Popes prerogative, then we have seen.
The Protestants.
THat the Pope is by right, and ought to be subject to general Councils, and that they have authority to judge, examine, suspend, punish, & depose him, if there be just cause, it is proved thus. This matter was pithilie disputed upon by the Fathers of Basil, 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 Segouius answered, that it was the most honorable 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 Lord's 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 Jesuit 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 Savior Christ, dic Ecclesiae, tell it to the Church, did but bind Peter, till Christ were ascended, and he received his Vicar-dome.
This cauillous answer the Fathers of Basil wisely foresaw, and prevented it, for they show how Peter was subject to Councils 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 Iudaizare, he would contstrain 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 Basil. First the Bishop of Burgen: As in every well ordered Kingdom, the whole realm should be of more authority then the King, so the Church ought to be of more authority then 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 Churches 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 then John the Baptist, of whom it is said, that the least in the Kingdom of God is greater then he: but the Angels do reuerentlie accord unto the doctrine of the Church. Ephes. 3.10. Ergo the Pope is bound to do the same, who is less then the Angels. These Fathers thought none so absurd to deny the Pope to be inferior to Angels, and therefore labor not to prove it. Yet Antoninus an old Papist saith, Non minor honor datur Papae, quàm Angels, there is no less honor due to the Pope then to the Angels. Nay another saith (I think it be Pope Paschalis) Datur Episcopis, quod ne Angels, vt 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 Basil thought not these men worthy the answer, no more do we, and so let thē pass. Thirdly, the Pope (say they) being the Vicar of the Church, for he is more truly so called, then 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 Councils.
4 If the Councils 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 Jesuit 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 Jesuit 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 doultish school points maintained especially by begging friers, the fathers of Basil 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 Councils.
4 Lastly, I will adjoin the judgment 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 Bishops assistants: and yet for all this the Donatists would not be quiet: Thus he saith, Putemus, illos iudices, qui Romae iudicauerunt, non bonos iudices fuisse: Restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium, &c. 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 judgment, if there were cause, reversed. Whereby it appeareth, say the fathers of Basil, 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 Jesuit 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 Popes authority, as the Jesuit confesseth, cannot err? Again, Augustine saith, vbi cum ipsis iudicibus 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 ought to be subject to general Councils.
THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF THE CONditions and quality of general Councils.
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, proroge, dissolve and confirm Councils, and he only to be the judge, president and moderator in Councils, 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 Councils.
4 That no Council is in force without the Popes assent, yea the Pope himself (say they) by his sole authotitie may abrogate and disannul the canons and decrees of Councils.
These and such other conditions the Papists require in their Councils: So they will be 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 Councils, 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 thē appointed at Mantua in Italy, whither Princes could not come without peril of journey and danger of life, being penned in by the Popes 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 Basil, 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 Jerome 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 brake the Emperor Sigismunds 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 besides, should give voices, seeing the cause of religion is common, and concerneth all. But most of all, that nothing be carried with violence or popularitie, 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 Councils. 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 Councils let all men judge.
THE FOURTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME, COMMONLIE CALLED THE POPE.
T His 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 Savior 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 partes 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 judgment of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fifthly, what primacy he hath over other Churches. Sixthly, 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 Popes temporal jurisdiction: two parts. First, whether he have authority above Kings and princes▪ Secondly, whether he be a temporal prince.
9 Of the perogatives of the Pope.
10 Concerning Antichrist: nine parts. First, whether Antichrist shall be someone singular man. Secondly, of the time of his coming. Thirdly, of his name. Fourthly, of his nation and kindred. Fifthly, where his place and seat shall be. Sixthly, of his doctrine and manners. Seventhly, of his miracles. Eighthly, 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 bare the greatest sway: as sometime in Rome also, tribuni plebis, the officers for the people had the chief authority. Now of all these in common-wealth 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-government: 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 ministry 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 premisses. 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 oppidall, 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 shown 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 shown 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 phantasies we will not believe) for the Church, as Moses had for the Tabernacle, then 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. verse. 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: for it is compounded of three Hebrew 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 Iud. 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 spake 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 Jesuit frameth another 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 seignorie, a Duke in his province, a Prince in his Kingdom, therefore there ought to be an Emperor over all the world: or as Master Calvin saith, because one field is committed to one Husbandman to dress and to till, therefore the whole Worlde 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, which Bellarmine is a shamed to grant yet. Pope Athanasius doubted not to call populos mundi, partes corporis sui, the people of the Worlde the partes 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, then 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 coadiutors and fellow-helpers.
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 Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Augustus ; seeing the government of the Church is easier then 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 Jesuit showeth his skill, when he saith, that the regiment of the Church is easier, then 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 lande. Augustine saith, Nemo nostrum se episcopum episcoporum constituit, aut quasi tyrannico terrore ad obsequēdi 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 tyrants use, to enforce his fellows to obey. Ergo by his judgment 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 stiffelie maintain, that he was not only head of the [error 37] Church, but of the Apostles also. Bellarmi. lib. 1. de pontif. 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 defense 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, Peters 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 then 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 preeminence to Peter, neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name, for he is often̄ in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon, Mat. 16.17. & 17, 25. Fulk. Annot. in John. 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 built, 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.
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 built 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 Peters 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, shall be bound in Heaven: Ergo: Peter had especial jurisdiction given him more then 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: Peters 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 honored 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 loose, 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, judgment, knowledge, discretion between true and false doctrine, all which we grant together with Peter to have been given to all the Apostles besides. But say they, hereby is signified the height of government, the power of making laws, of calling Councils 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 judgment 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 oues, the blessed Apostle toke 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 preeminence 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 always 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 Matthias. 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, promptnes 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) Bishoppe 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, 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 Jesuit:) 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 Anselm 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 preeminence: 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 thā 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-laborers 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 lotte at Peters 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 Jesuit, 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 lotte, for Christ himself first preached to the Jews. We answer, we deny not, but that he had the first lotte in order: for to the Jews was the Gospel first offered: but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte: 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. another 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 Peters own Bishopric, as they say, can it be now thought that Paul was anything inferior to Peter ?
Bellarmine and the Jesuits answer, that the Pope may be rebuked of an inferior, and ought to take it patiently, if it be done in zeal and love. Aunswere: First, we do not simply thus conclude, because Paul reprehended Peter, therefore he was not his superior, but because of the manner, as we shown: 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 then 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 then 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, then ever he would have challenged to himself.
To let pass the smaller slips and scapes 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: thirdlie, 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. Fifthlie, his timorousness in flying from Christ at his apprehension. Sixtlie, his curiosity, John 21. In asking 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 Savior from his passion with these words: Master favor 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 denyer.
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 crewe twice, Mark. 14.72. The Jesuit answereth, that this was no hindrance to Peters 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 judgment of Peters 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: Recte etiam fecit Judas, qui tradidit dominum, quia & hoc praedixerat dominus: then Judas did well too (saith he) in betraying of Christ, for this also Christ shown 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, 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 crowe till thou hast denied me thrice: he saith not, till thou hast denied the man, but me. Agayne, Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos: Peter himself doth confute his maintayners and defenders: Agnouit plane peccatum suum infirmitas Petri: Peters 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 salua fide negauit: Peter denied not the faith of Christ, but his faith remaining safe and sound he denied Christ? The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peters 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 offense. Yea, was it so small a fault to constrayne 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, quod seruabat consuetudinem Iudaeorum, in qua natus & educatus fuit, sed quod 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 leuissimum peccatum, a small transgression? S. Paul should greatly have been to blame, for rebuking Peter openly, and so plainly for so small an offense, and should have done against his own rule, Galath. 6.1. But Peter did it of a good mind (saith Bellarmine. ) 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 then there expressed, and now contrary to that decree, he constrayneth the Gentiles, Iudaizare, 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 vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter, vt 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 pontif. Rhemens. argum. in 1. Epist. Petri.
We answer: First, it is a silly argument for them hereby to prove Peters 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 mysticallie, 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 Agayne, 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 brake 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 shown. Secondly, concerning this story of the victory over Simon Magus, they that doubt of Peters 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, 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 pleri{que} Romani. This is (saith he) a probable opinion of many, (concerning Peters 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 savoreth 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 Jesuit: God send all that are his such a prison at the length. Agayne, 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 sepulcher 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 Agayne, how shall we believe you, that it is S. Peters Sepulcher, which is shown at Rome ; seeing you have made so many mockeries already, making the world believe, that Peters body is sometime in one place, sometime in another? Half his body (you say) is at S. Peters in Rome, half at S. Paul's, his head at S. John Lateran, his nether iawe 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 Peters body be at Rome, as in any of these places. And such as you see, are our adversaries arguments for Peters being at Rome.
The Protestants.
COncerning Peters 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 Peters coming to Rome: Orosius saith he came thither in the beginning of Claudius reign: Jerome 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 dissention 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 everything 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 chronologie 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 Peters 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 Peters coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, his abiding at Rome five & twenty years, his death and martyrdom in the 14. yere 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 past before Paul's conversion: in all 18. years: add unto these the 25. years of Peters 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 spake 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 labored 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 labored 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 diverse other obections 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, Rō. 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 workfellowes, 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 laborers: these only are my workfellowes to the kingdom of God, Coloss. 4.11.
An other 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 favorers 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 defense: 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 defense of the truth. Secondly, it is proved by the diverse 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 anything to the contrary, Act. 15.7. the Gentiles believed by S. Peters 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. Agayne, there were diverse that dwelled at Rome, which heard the Apostles speak diverse tongues, Act. 2. being strangers then and soiourners at Jerusalem: and Rom. 16.7. he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia, 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 conuerter 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 Episcopy, 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, shown in a letter of his to Cardinal Poole, how in times past, both Peter and Paul ▪ were counted Patrones 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 fifth place after Peter and Paul: If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence 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 diverse offices, Eph. 4.11. he gave some to be Apostles, some to be Pastors & Doctors: Ergo, they were diverse 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 officiū 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 vniuersum 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 Jesuit runneth to tradition: and at the length he thus concludeth; that it is not, de iure diuino,