A General View of Papistry

The Papists.

[error 67] THey say, that the election of Bishops neither belongeth to the Clergy, nor the people, but wholly appertaineth to the Bishop of Rome: as for the people, they have (they say) nothing at all to do in the election of their pastors, or ordaining of them, that neither their suffragium, consilium, or consensus, suffrage, counsel or consent is to be required, Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. cap. 7. & 8.

1 That the people are to be utterly excluded, thus they would prove it: Aaron was only elected of Moses, without consent of the people, so were the Apostles by our Savior: Ergo, the people's consent is not required, Bellarm.

Ans. Who seeth not, that there is great difference between ordinary and extraordinary callings? such as the calling of the Apostles was, and Aaron's at the first, though the office of the high Priest afterward became ordinary. Also it followeth not, the Apostles were chosen without consent of the people, when there were yet no faithful and Christian congregations, and because they were pastors of the whole world, Ergo, as well the people's consent may be wanting in the election of ordinary Bishops and Pastors, which have their peculiar & proper charges, and there being now many faithful and well instructed congregations. It is one thing to appoint Pastors for the Church not yet planted, & another thing to constitute them in a Church already reformed and instructed: for we read of nations that have been converted to the faith, by those that had no calling of the Church, as a great nation of the Indians was by Aedesius and Frumentinus, Ruffin. lib. 1.9. and the Iberians by a captive woman, Ruffin. 1.10.

2 The people cannot judge, who are fit to be pastors, and their elections are tumultuous, as we may read, how in the election of Damasus there were 137. persons slain, and therefore it is not meet, nor convenient, that the matter should be committed to the people, either to elect, or ordain: but whatsoever they did in times past, it was either by sufferance or negligence of the Bishops, Bellarmine. cap. 7.

Ans. First, mere popular elections were never allowed in any well ordered Church, neither was the allowāce of their pastors wholly referred to the people, neither did they bear the chief stroke, but the election was moderated by the wisdom and gravity of the Clergy, Fulk. Tit. 1. sect. 2. Secondly, the question is not between us, concerning the ordaining of pastors, for that belonged only to the Eldership, and was done by laying on of their hands, 1. Timoth. 4.14: but concerning the electing and choosing of them. Thirdly, neither do we dispute, whether it be convenient and necessary at all times, but whether it be lawful: for neither do we affirm, that it is of the essence and substance of the calling of ministers to be chosen by the voices of the people: as though they were no ministers, but usurpers and intruders that are not so called: but whether it hath been at any time, & may yet be lawful, to require the consent of the people. Fourthly, it is false, that the people had this right by usurpation, or else sufferance of the Pastors: for Cyprian saith, it did, De diuina authoritate descendere, lib. 1. Epistol. 4. That this custom was grounded upon divine authority, yea it was established by the laws of Kings: as there was a law made by Lodouicus Pius King of France, that Bishops should be ordained by the free election of the Clergy and the people, ex Ansigis. lib. 1. cap. 20.

3 Therefore (say they) elections of Bishops ought to be at the Popes assignment: for unto Peter was committed the care of the universal Church, when he bad Peter feed his sheep. Hereupon they are bold to affirm, that we have neither true Bishops nor Ministers, because they are not lawfully sent, that is, as they interpret it, from the See Apostolic, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 3.8. Rhemist. Rom. 10. sect. 5.

Answer: First, the charge given to Peter beareth no such sense: that because Christ bad him feed his sheep, therefore he and his successors should only have authority to consecrate Ministers: for if Peter had it by this grant, other Elders and Pastors had it in like sort, to whom it as well appertained to feed the flock of Christ, 1. Peter 5.2. And again, not Peter only, but the rest also of the Apostles did ordain and consecrate Pastors and Elders, as it shall be shown afterward.

Secondly, neither is it a good reason to condemn our Ministry, because it hath not the Popes allowance: for every Church hath a lawful calling within it self, without sending to forrayne Prelates for their approbation. And if you ask us by whom our Ministers were first called, seeing there were none but popish Bishops in every Church: we answer: that some had their calling in the Popish Church, which afterward being more effectually called of GOD, became profitable teachers of the Gospel. Neither is it necessary, that the Church should always be bound to an ordinary calling; when as the state of the Church is so corrupted, and the government thereof, that no good calling can be obtained: for then the Lord raiseth up some extraordinarily for the reformation of the Church, such as we doubt not, but Luther was. In which and the like cases, the ordinary imposition of hands by the Pastors of the Church, being heretics and idolaters, as it was in time of Popery, is not to be expected or stayed for, Plura apud Fulk. annot. Rom. 10. sect. 5.

The Protestants.

COncerning election or choice to be made by the people, we are to put three cases. First, mere popular elections, wherein the people by multitude of voice should carry all away, are in no case, nor at any time to be allowed. Secondly, for the people to give their voice in elections, which are moderated and governed by the grave and wise Pastors and Elders, it hath been used in times past, and may be again, and is in some places, where the state of the Church, the condition and quality of the people will bear it. Thirdly, though the people neither bear sway in the election, nor give their suffrages and voices, yet it is convenient and requisite, that their consent should be had, and public testimony: for the Ministers should be such as have a good report of all, 1. Timoth. 3.7. Fulk. Act. 14. sect. 3. But as for the Pope, let him keep himself, as a Bishop in his own Dioces, he hath nothing to do with ordaining or electing of Ministers in other Churches.

1 Numb. 20.27. Eleazar was made Priest in Aaron's place, in the sight of all the congregation: Ergo, Ministers ought to be ordained publicly in the sight of the congregation: not in corners or private places, as they used to do in time of Popery: yea it is recorded of Pope John the 13. that he ordained Deacons in a stable. And herein they offended manifestly against their own rules: for their decree is, Nullus inuitis detur Episcopus, sed Cleri & plebis consensus & desideriū requiratur: Let no Bishop be thrust upon any against their wills, but let the consent and desire of the people and Clergy be known.

2 We have the example of the Apostles, Act. 1. & 6. & 14.23. When Matthias was elected, the whole multitude was called together: and Act. 6. the Deacons were chosen by the whole multitude: Ergo, the people had an interest in times past in the election of Church officers: and this example of the Apostles may safely and lawfully be followed of the Church, when time and place serveth.

Bellarmine answereth: First, the election of Deacons and Pastors is not all one, neither is there the like reason. Ans. They are both public officers for the good of the Church, and therefore if the people have any interest in the one, why not in the other? Secondly, this was done by the grant and sufferance of the Apostles. Ans. Yea the Apostles called them together, but by the direction of the holy Ghost: as Act. 15. when the Church was assembled together upon another occasion, it is said, It seemed good to us and the holy Ghost. Agayne, in the election, beside imposition of hands, prayer was used, which was a chief part of that action: but the people had their interest in public prayers, as being part of the congregation, and were not admitted thereunto at the pleasure and will of men: wherefore it is not true, that it was a mere grant of men, that the people might be present at elections, but it so seemed good to the Apostles thereto directed by the spirit of God.

3 But as for the right of elections in the Pope, it hath no show of reason: for be it that Peter had only the right of consecration amongst the Apostles, you do but flatter yourselves in thinking, that whatsoever right was in Peter, it must needs be in the Pope: for he is not Peters successor, as we have shown before at large. But we will hold you rather to this point: that all the Apostles had as full right to ordain and consecrate by laying on of hands, as Peter had. Look Act. 6.6. & Act. 13.3. & Act. 14.23. And if the Pope cannot have all that which Peter had, much less can he be capable of that which Peter never had.

4 We have had good experience in England, of the Popes great discretion and wisdom, in collation of spiritual preferments, and ordaining of Bishops. About anno 1253. the Pope wrote a very imperious and commanding letter to the good Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grostede, to bestow a Canonship in Lincoln upon his nephewe, a boy: for so Popes call their bastards: but he suffered the repulse for that time. In the time of Edward the 3. and Richard the 2. a certificate was sent up into the Chauncerie, of such Ecclesiastical dignities, as were possessed by strangers not inhabiting the land: and there were found above forty Deaneries, Archdeaconries and Prebends, and those not the worst, some worth one hundred, some two hundred, nay, some four hundred pound by the year, the Archdeaconrie of Canturburie was valued at seven hundred Florences by the year, which a Cardinal of Rome had: And there were above a dosen Cardinals resiant at Rome, that had at once the best and richest dignities in the land: beside a great sort of Italian priests, and others, that were beneficed in England. By this it may appear, what good choice the Pope-holy father of Rome was wont to make in bestowing Church dignities: and it were pity but he should have the ordering of them still, he did so well dispose of them when he had them.

5 Let Augustine speak, who growing now old, was desirous to know his successor while he lived: he went not to Rome for the matter: but assembling the Church together at Hippo where he was Bishop; in the presence of two Bishops beside, and seven Presbyters or Elders, Astante clero & frequenti populo, the whole Clergy, and a great sort of people standing by: Augustine himself began first and said, Presbyterum Eradium mihi successorem volo: I would have Eradius presbyter to be my successor. Afterward, hearing how the people did approve and like of his motion, he desired them to subscribe to that which was done, Rogo vt dignemini gestis subscribere, qui potestis. And when they held their peace, he urged them further, saying, Hic mihi responsione vestra opus est, de hac assensione aliquid acclamate: I must needs have you make some answer, and testify your consent by your acclamation: A populo acclamatum est, fiat, fiat, dictum vicies quinquies: The people cried out, let it be as thou hast said, let it be, and this was repeated five and twenty times, Augustine. epistol. 110. By this example it appeareth, though the people made not the choice, yet their consent was demanded. And thus a Bishop was elected, and no word sent up to Rome at all.

Neither was it the custom of the Church so to do in those days: for whereas the Donatists objected against Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, because he stayed not to be ordained of the chief Bishop of Numidia, Vt princeps Episcopus a principe ordinaretur: That one chief Bishop might be ordained of another. Augustine answered, that there was another custom of the Catholic Church, Vt non Numidiae, sed propinquiores Episcopy, Episcopum ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinarent: That not the Bishop of Numidia, but those Bishops that were nearest at hand, should ordain the Bishop of Carthage. So we see, they were not only bold to choose an inferior Bishop, as was Eradius of Hippo, without the Popes consent: but they would adventure to ordain a chief Metropolitan Bishop even of Carthage, without the Popes leave.

The Protestants.

THough it do not greatly concern us, what manner of election is used at Rome: (for unto us the electiō of the meanest Bishop in the land is as much, yea and more, then the glorious enthronizing of the Pope:) Yet it shall not be amiss briefly to show, how these great antiquaries are become enemies of antiquity, refusing the ancient manner of election, which was used in Rome for a 1000. years together, namely, that the Bishop there should be elected by the whole Clergy, wiht the consent of the people and confirmation of the Emperor.

1 It is a plain case, that till the year 685. in all their elections they waited for the authority of the chief Magistrate, the Emperor, or the deputy of Italy. But then came in the constitution of Constantine the 4 that their elections should be firm without the consent of the Emperor. Yet for all this constitution, anno. 810. Pope Adriane gave unto Carolus magnus full authority to elect the Bishop of Rome: and anno. 961. Leo the 9. made the same grant to Otho first Germane Emperor. This continued in force till Alexander the 2. his time, who was elected first without the Emperors consent, but afterward repenting of it, he protested openly, that he would be no longer Pope unless he had the Emperors consent, and thereupon he was deposed by Hildebrand, and thrown into prison. This was more then a 1000. years after Christ: since that time the Emperor hath been excluded, and shut out from their elections. But all this while notwithstanding, though the Emperors consent sometime was not necessary, yet the Clergy of Rome, and the people retained their ancient privilege still. So we see by this new erection of the College of Cardinals, there is great injury offered to three estates, the Emperor, the Clergy of Rome, the people.

2 This new form of election hath not stood continually in force, since it was first founded. For in the Council of Constance sess. 40. they proceeded to the election of a new Pope, not staying for the rest of the Cardinals, but appointing other electors in their room. In the Council of Basil, the Duke of Savoy was elected Pope, by other electors, then Cardinals: Nay there was but one Cardinal, namely, Arolatensis, the rest were Bishops, Doctors and others. And though they will say perchance that this Pope was chosen in a schism, for they hold the Council of Basil to be schismatical: yet they cannot, neither do deny, but that Pope Martin the 5. who was chosen at Constance, was rightfully Pope.

3 In Augustine's time the rest of the Bishops of Italy near unto Rome, should seem to have had some interest in the election of the Bishop: Romanae ecclesiae Episcopum non ordinat Episcopus aliquis metropolitanus, sed de proximo Ostiensis Episcopus: The B. of Rome is not ordained by any Metropolitan, but by the Bishop of Ostia that is near at hand, Breuicul. collation. lib. 2. cap. 5.

The Papists.

THough they have diverse degrees of dignity in the Church, as Popes, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Primates, and such like: yet they make but seven [error 69] Ecclesiastical orders, which are conferred solemnlie by certain rites and ceremonies by their Bishops: And they are these, Ostiarij, door-keepers, Exorcistae, Exorcists, Lectores, Readers, Acolythi, Attenders, Subdiaconi, Subdeacons, Diaconi, Deacons, and the highest degree, Sacerdotes, Priests; unto the which all the other are but rises and steppes. All these they maintain to be Ecclesiastical orders, and to be retained in the Church, Bellarm. cap. 11. Rhemist. 1. Tim. 3. sect. 7.

They have no proof nor warrant out of scripture, for these frivolous orders, but only a show of antiquity, as they allege certain Canons out of the 4. Council of Carthage, where such offices are reckoned up, Rhemist. ibid.

Answer: First, to let pass this, that the Council may be suspected for the credit thereof, seeming wholly to be patched out of the Popes decrees. Secondly, we deny not but they had such offices, as Readers, to read the text of the scriptures, exorcists to cast out devils, which was an extraordinary gift for that time, Acoluthists, young men appointed to attend upon the Bishop for their better instruction: Door-keepers, that kept the entry of the Church that no heathen person or excommunicate should enter. But these were both diverse offices, then are now appointed for them in the popish Church: for they make them now, all or the most ministers and seruitors for the idolatrous service of the Mass, which in those days was not heard of: neither though there were such offices and services in the Church, were they made orders and degrees of the ministry.

3 They had other offices beside, which now are not in use, no not amongst the papists: for they had also singers, laborers, confessors, diggers or Sextons: so that if you will make all those offices used in time past in the Church, so many orders of the ministry, you must make ten or eleven: more, then you do acknowledge, or use in your Church, Fulk. annot. 1. Tim. 3. sect. 7.

The Protestants.

THe question is not between us and our adversaries in this place, concerning the titles and dignities annexed to the ministry, as of Bishops, Archdeacons, Deans, Prouosts, but of the several orders of the Ministry: For Bishops and other ministers do not differ in order, but in office of government: They hold that there are seven several such orders, which have their several rites of consecration, and peculiar offices in the Church allotted them. But we content ourselves with those orders only and degrees as necessary, which the holy scripture hath commended, Fulk. ibid.

1 As for the names and offices of Subdeacons, Readers, Exorcists, Acolythi, door-keepers, we have no such warrant out of the scripture, to make them orders of the Church: and therefore we condemn them. All necessary orders for the edifying & building of the Church, the scripture hath prescribed us, Eph. 4.11. there are all offices set down needful for the doctrine, instruction, & edifying of the Church: Fulk. Ephes. 4. sect. 4. Wherefore away with these popish orders, invented by men. But as for unable offices and services, which shall be thought meet for the affairs and business of the Church, they may be retained and kept, but not as new orders of the ministry.

2 These offices are first Idolatrous, as they are now used among the papists, for the Deacons, Subdeacons, Acolythi, were to attend upon the Priest at Mass. Secondly, some of their offices were ridiculous, as to sweep the Church, to drive out dogs, and to hold a fly-flap of Peacoks feathers, to keep the flies from falling into the communion cup. Thirdly, they were distinguished, by ridiculous ornaments & attire, which were proper to everyone of them: as it shall appear now in their description.

From the Priest when he was disgraded, they took the Chalice, patine, and host, that he should have no power anymore to offer sacrifice: they scraped his nails with a piece of glass, and so took away his anointing: and lastly, they took away his priestly ornaments, the Che • ile, which signified charity, the Stole, that represented the sign of our Lord. Frō the Deacons in their disgradation, they took first the book of the Gospels, and so all power to read the Gospels: Then they took away his Dalmatike a sign of his Levitical office, and the white Stole behind his back that signified innocence.

From the Subdeacon they took the book of the Epistles, that he should have no more power to read them, also the empty Chalice, and Subdeacons vesture: his office was to serve and minister to the Deacons at the Altar.

The Acolythi did light the candles in the Church, and brought wine and water to the altar in pitchers and bottles: and in his degradation there was taken from him, an empty flaggon or bottle, and a candlestick, with a wax candle put out.

The order of exorcism was taken away, by depriving him from power to read in the book of exorcisms.

From the Reader they took the book of Church lectures or lessons. Last of all, from the door-keeper was taken the keys of the Church: And so was he deprived of all power to open or shut the Church doors, and to ring the bells. Ex Fox pag. 2134.

Thus we see, how much these offices are degenerate from the ancient use: First, they are all but Ministers and attendants for the abominable sacrifice of the mass, which in those days was not known, for the Acoluthus or waiter waiteth upon the Subdeacon, the Subdeacon upon the Deacon, and all of them upon the Priest at Mass. Secondly, whereas then the Exorcists had a peculiar grace of God to cast out devils: their Exorcists do but read certain exorcisms in books, their Readers only read the text of scripture: now they read the legends of popish saints. Then in time of persecution, when Christians assembled in the night, the waiters had the charge to light the candles, but now they do light them at noon day.

3 These offices have not been in use these many years among the papists themselves: for many times the Sexton or his boy, do execute the charge both of Acolites, Ostiaries and Readers, yea of Deacons and Subdeacons also, when the Priest with his boy can dispatch a Mass. Neither are these orders retained amongst them, for any especial service or office, but only as praeparatories, and steps and degrees to the priesthood, Fulk. annot. 1. Timoth. 3. sect. 7.

The Papists.

WE differ from them in two points: First, they say, that Bishops are not only in a higher degree of superiority to other Ministers, but they are as Princes of the Clergy, and other Ministers as subjects, and in all things to be commanded by them. Secondly, they affirm that Bishops are only properly Pastors, and that to them only it doth appertain to preach, and that other Ministers have no authority without their license or consent, to preach at all, and that not principally or chiefly, but solie and wholly to them appertaineth the right of consecrating and giving orders.

For the first, for the princely authority of Bishops, whom they would have obeyed in all things; they wrast these and such like places of scripture: as 2. Cor. 1.9. I write unto you, to know whether you will be obedient in all things, Ergo, they must be absolutely obeyed. Answer: the Apostle challengeth only obedience in such things, as he should command agreeable to God's word, for if I myself (saith he) preach another Gospel, hold me accursed, Galat. 1. Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 2. sect. 3.

2 Against an Elder receive no accusation under two or three witnesses, 1. Tim. 5.19. Ergo, the authority of Bishops is absolute and princelike: Videmus Episcopum iudicem esse presbyterorum, proinde verum principem, we see the Bishop is the judge of the Elders, Ergo, a prince over them, Bellarm cap. 14.

Answer: First, it followeth not, Bishops have jurisdiction and authority over other Ministers, Ergo, they are princes over them. Can there be no preeminence and superiority in the Church, but it must needs be princelike? Is every judge a prince over those, which are brought before him to be judged? 2. Timothy had no such princelike authority, for here it is restrained & limited, a rule is set down by the Apostle which he must observe: Ergo, his authority was not absolute. Thirdly, Saint Paul was so far off from making Timothy a prince in the Church at Ephesus, that he would rather have him not to rebuke, but to exhort the Elders as fathers, the younger men as brethren, cap. 5.1. Where now is his princely authority become, whereas he maketh his subjects (as our adversaries call inferior Ministers) his fathers and brethren?

For the second, the Apostles properly had the preaching of the word committed unto them, Act. 6. For other were chosen to attend upon tables: the Apostles also only had the right of laying on of hands, Act. 14.23. Ergo, It is proper only to Bishops to preach, and to ordain, who are the Apostles successors, Bellarmine.

Answer: First, Bellarmine denieth that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, de pontifice lib. 4.25. because he would magnify the Pope his ghostly father above all Bishops: but now forgetting himself, he saith, Episcopy proprie succedunt Apostolis, Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, cap. 14. & so by this reason every Bishop hath as full authority as the Pope. Secondly, every godly & faithful Bishop is a successor to the Apostles, we deny it not, & so are all faithful and godly pastors & Ministers: for Christ prayeth for them all indifferently, having first prayed for his Apostles, John 17.20. I pray not for these alone, saith our Savior, but for all them which shall believe in me through their word. Thirdly, at that time when the Deacons were elected, the congregation was at Jerusalem, neither were there as yet any other Pastors ordained, & therefore the Apostles only attēded upon preaching of the word: but afterward when they had ordained Pastors in other Churches, to them also fully was committed the word of reconciliation, Ephes. 4.11. Christ hath given some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and teachers: So that Pastors & teachers, though ordained first by the Apostles, yet had their calling of God, and together in their calling, authority and commission to preach, neither being once ordained, needed they to expect any further license from the Apostles.

And as for the right of ordaining and imposition of hands, though it were chiefly in the Apostles, yet the Pastors and Elders together with them laid on their hands, Act. 13.4. Yea the Rhemists confess as much, that when a Priest is to be ordered, the rest of the Priests together with the Bishop do lay on their hands, Annotat. 1. Timoth. 4.18. What doth this else signify, but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop? The law also must be changed, Heb. 7.12. that is, the manner and form of the priesthood. But we easily see your drift: you would gladly have us like of this argument, that instead of a high Priest in the law, you might bring a Pope into the Church.

The Protestants.

FIrst, though we do admit, that for avoiding of schism, the Church hath thought it meet, there should be difference in degree and a superiority among Ministers, yet your princely dominion which you do urge, in no wise must be admitted.

1 It is contrary to the rule of Christ. Luk. 22.25. the Kings of the nations are Lord's over them, and they that have authority over them, are called benefactors: Here our Savior speaketh not of tyrannical dominion (for how could tyrants be benefactors?) but forbiddeth, that there should be any such princelike and pompous preeminence among ecclesiastical persons, as there is among secular and civil governors: A superiority may be granted, but not as the Prince is over his subjects: it was so in time of popery, that the people were half subjects to the Prince and half subjects to their spiritual governors: But though we acknowledge other ecclesiastical fathers and pastors, yet we are subjects only to our prince.

2 Saint Peter also is flat against this princely rule and dominion, Feede the flock, saith he, not as Lord's over God's heritage, but that you may be ensamples, 1. Pet. 5.3. But are not they, I pray you, Lord's over the flock, that challenge to be princes?

Secondly, concerning the power of preaching, we affirm, that every pastor once ordained, hath sufficient authority to preach in his own flock and charge, as John Hus notably proved to their face out of a certain gloss in the fifth book of the decretals, that when as the Bishop ordayneth any Priest, he giveth him also therewithal authority to preach. We deny not, but when there is just occasion, this authority maybe restrained by the Church governors, and so also may an evil Minister be suspended from his whole ministry: But the power before spoken of, he hath at his first receiving of orders: We thus show it.

Whatsoever belongeth to the office of a Minister set over a flock or charge, he receiveth the power thereof when he is ordained: But to preach the word, belongeth to the office of such: for preaching is properly the feeding of the people.

But see the absurdity of the papists: they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach, but only to have power to sacrifice the body of Christ: But it is proper to the Bishop, say they, to preach. We answer: First, then the Bishop is properly the pastor of every flock and congregation in his diocese, for he that properly feedeth, is properly the Pastor: And he that is properly the Pastor, hath the charge of souls properly, yea more, then hath the particular Pastor: for he is improperly their Pastor, but as it were the Bishops substitute and Vicar: But what Bishop in the world is able to bear so great a burden, to have the especial and proper charge of all the souls in his diocese? It is not to be denied, but he hath a charge of their souls, as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subjects: but to say he is the proper Pastor, and hath the proper & principal charge of souls in teaching and feeding of them (for the question is now of preaching, not of governing) who is able to abide it? Secondly, but our Rhemists tell us another tale, that many that are not able to preach, are meet enough to be Bishops, 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 13. Ergo, it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach. I pray you then, for whom is it proper? if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors, then for none. Thirdly, they make but seven orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers, and the priesthood is the chief: for a Bishop and a priest make but one order, as Bellarmine. confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach: for seeing it is not proper to the priest, none of the inferior orders can challenge it. See then what goodly orders these are, which leave the very chief parte of the ministry undone, which is the preaching of the word. I think their meaning is, that this preaching is not so necessary a duty, but may be well spared in the Church.

2 That which a man is bound to do under pain of the curse of GOD, that he may lawfully perform in due order without the leave of men: but a woe is laid upon them that preach not the Gospel, where they are bound, 1. Cor. 9.16. Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi.

3 A man is bound to give corporal alms to the poor, the needy, the hungry, the thirsty, neither is he to crave leave of any: Ergo, much more to teach the ignorant, to comfort the weak, and do other duties appertaining to his charge, Argum. Wicliffi.

Concerning the power of giving orders: As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his hands, 2. Timoth. 1.6. so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership: 1. Timoth, 4.14. And the Rhemists vpō that place mislike not the practice of the Church, that their Priests do lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained. So that by this it is manifest, that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folie belong unto the Bishop, seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise, or the Bishop in the name of the rest, Fulk. annot. Tit. 1. sect. 2. So that the Elders were not excluded.

The Papists.

BEllarmine would fain have the office of Cardinals, as ancient as the Apostles [error 72] times: and the name to be worthily appropriated to the See of Rome, that as the Pope himself by his prudence and holiness, is, tanquam cardo Ecclesiae, to the Church as the hingell to the door, upon the which it is turned and borne up: so his Counsellers and assistants should be called Cardinals, having the care of the Universal Church: but the Jesuit, beside some vain show of mothworne antiquity, hath not one good argument to prove the name, and office of Cardinals, to be either ancient or commendable. Then especial office, as they are Cardinals, is to elect and choose the Pope, and to be assistant unto him in Counsel, for the government of the universal Church, Bellarm. cap. 16.

The Protestants.

THat neither the name of Cardinals, as proper to Rome, is ancient, nor their office, or either of them lawful or commendable, but usurped and Antichristian, thus briefly it is shown.

1 In Augustine's time it was a common name, usually applied, both in the good and evil parte, to chief and principal men of any place, or sect: as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists, Cardinales Donatistas, Cardinal or captain Donatists: de baptism. lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely, if it then had been only due to the assistants of the Roman Bishop, Augustine had been much to blame to apply the name to Heretics.

2 Augustine thus writeth to Jerome, Quamues secundum honorum vocabula, saith he, Episcopatus presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustine. Hieronim. minor est. Though according to the custom of the Church, a Bishop be greater then a Priest, yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Jerome a Priest. Now Jerome was a Priest of Rome, and a Cardinal, as our adversaries say, and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gown and habit of a Cardinal: yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him, though for his great learning he putteth himself behind him.

3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome, qui duce stultitia, saith he, diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit: who being led or carried away with folly, did go about to make Deacons equal unto Priests. Is not the same folly now generally practiced in Rome, or a greater? for they do not only prefer Cardinal Deacons before Priests, but even before Bishops and Archbishops: in Augustine's time, this was counted a great folly.

4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope, we have shown before, quest. 2. part. 2. that it is of no great antiquity: and that it is injurious to three estates, to the Emperor, who was wont to cōfirm the election, to the Clergy of Rome, who had in times past interest in the election, and to the people, whose consent was also in time past required: But now all these are excluded, and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals.

The Papists.

[error 73] BY the Keys and power of binding and loosing, they chiefly and principally understand the censures of the Church, as Excommunications, Anathematismes, suspensiōs, Degradations, & the whole Ecclesiastical iurisdictiō. Rhemist. Annot. Matt. 16. sect. 14. Bel. lib. 1. de pontif. cap. 13. Secondly, they tie remission and retaining of sins to their imagined and devised sacrament of penance, saying, that where Christ gave authority to remit sins to his Apostles, John 20.23. he instituted the sacrament of penance, Rhemist. John. 20. sect. 3. The sacrifice also and Sacraments of the Church, say they, are ministered for remission of sins, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 5. sect. 3. Thirdly, they seem to grant in words, that by preaching also of the Gospel, sins are retained, and remitted, ibid. but they make small account thereof: for as we have heard, they make it not of the essence of their priesthood to preach, neither doth it properly appertain unto that office: yea, say they, absolutiō cannot be rightly sought for at the priests hands, but by confession of our sins, which is done in penance. Rhem. John. 20. sect. 5. This then is their opinion, that by their devised ceremony and Sacrament of penance, sins are properly forgiven, and that the preaching of the word is not thereto necessary.

Their chief argument is, by abusing that place, John 20.23. where they say Christ instituted the Sacrament of penance, when he gave power to his Apostles to remit and retain sins.

Ans. First, your Sacrament of Penance, is neither grounded upon this, nor any other place of scripture: here in the words of Christ there is no institution of a sacrament, because there is no visible element given, whereunto the word being added may make a sacrament. Secondly, here the commission is but renewed, which was granted before to his Apostles, and their successors, Matth. 18.18. Fulk. Annot. John. 20. sect. 3.

The Protestants.

THe Keys of the Church, that is, the power to bind and loose sinners, to open or shut unto them the kingdom of God, consisteth both in the external discipline and government of the Church lawfully executed according to the word of God, as also in preaching of the Gospel, by assuring in Christ's name all faithful and penitent persons remission and forgiveness of their sins, and in denouncing and threatening the wrath of God against the disobedient and impenitent: also as the sacraments are joined to the word, as seals and pledges of the promises thereof, so by the right administration of the sacraments together with the preaching of the word, sins are retained or remitted.

The Rhemists therefore do us great injury, in falsely charging of us, that we should hold that the spiritual power of the Church standeth only upon the preaching of the word, whereas we grant, that it is exercised also in the Ecclesiastical government of the Church, both in punishing, excommunicating & censuring of offenders, which is the binding of them, and in releasing and absolving them again, which is the other power of loosing: Rhemist. 2. Corinth. cap. 10. sect. 1. Leauing now this part of spiritual power in Ecclesiastical discipline, which is not in this place in question between us, we must touch that other part, which is exercised in the word and sacraments.

1 That the sacraments do bind and loose, it is proved out of the word of God: they do bind, Whosoever eateth & drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh his own damnation, 1. Cor. 11.29. they do also loose, As oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death, till he come, verse. 26.

But here is a double caution and condition to be annexed. First, that all Sacraments work not this effect, but only those of Christ's institution, which are but two, baptism and the supper of the Lord: for Paul saith, I have received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you, 1. Cor. 11.23. If the Apostles would not, neither might deliver any Sacraments, but those which were instituted of Christ, what great presumption is it in any other to do it? Secondly, we must not think, that remissiō of sins is necessarily tied to the Sacraments, as though there could be no remissiō without thē, for the grace of remission may be effectual in the name of Christ, by the preaching of the word without a sacrament, John. 20. sect. 4. Ful. For the word may be preached without a sacrament, but the sacrament cannot be ministered without the word: for that were as though a man should deliver a seal without a writing. Neither is it our meaning, that as the Rhemists cavil with us, the sacrament cannot be administered without a sermon of the death of Christ: for though that were always to be wished, yet where it cannot be had, there must and ought to be a brief showing and declaration of the death of Christ out of the word, so oft as the Sacrament is administered, as it is observed in our Church. Fulk. Annot. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 15.

3 We must take heed, we conceive not thus, as though the Sacrament gave grace by the work wrought, and that by the very use, form, and external act of the Sacrament we obtain remission of sins, as the Rhemists would bear us in hand, 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 15. But the Sacraments are only effectual to the worthy receivers, and to the worthy receiving, faith is requisite, as Saint Paul willeth all men to examine themselves, 1. Corinth. 11.28. which is, as he himself interpreteth it, to prove whether they be in the faith, 2. Corinth. 13.5. These conditions then being observed, we deny not, but that there is an exercise of the keys even in the Sacraments.

2 But chiefly and principally, is this power dispensed by the preaching of the word, as Saint Paul saith, We are the savor of death unto death, unto some: there is the binding: and to other the savor of life unto life: there is the loosing, 1. Corinth. 2.16. So our Savior Christ saith, He that refuseth me, the word that I have spoken, shall judge him in the last day, John. 12.48. Here is the power of binding: Again, the truth shall make you free, John 8.32. Here is the power of loosing. Who therefore doubteth this, that the preaching of the word is the most proper and principal way and mean, for the exercising of this Ecclesiastical power? for seeing faith is the key of heaven, thereby we have free access unto the throne of grace, Rom. 5.2. and faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10.17. and hearing by the word: It remaineth that by the word the keys are dispensed.

Augustine also subscribeth unto this: for speaking of reformation of life and repentance with remission of former sins, thus he saith, Quid empturus es vt facias, quae emplastra quaesiturus? ecce cùmloquor, muta cor, & factum est, quod tam saepe & tam diu clamatur, vt fiat. in Psal. 63. What medicine or plaster wilt thou buy to heal thy sin? Behold even now, while I preach unto thee, change thy heart, and it is already done, which we so often call upon you to be done: See then by the preaching of the word our heart is changed, our life amended, and our sin remitted.

The Papists.

[error 74] THe authority and power of excommunication, say they, is not in the whole Church, but only in the Prelates: neither was the power of binding and loosing given unto the whole church: but in their own name, not in the name or right of the Church, do the pastors and Prelates exercise this power, Remist. 2. 1. Corinth. 5. sect. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 7. The Church is said to bind and loose, because the Prelates do bind & loose, as a man is said to speak, and see, though he only speak with the tongue, and see with the eyes.

1 They seem to prove it by S. Paul's example, 1. Corinth. 5. I absent in body but present in spirit have decreed: S. Paul useth here his Apostolic power, in sending his letters and Mandatum, to have the incestuous person excommunicate: Ergo, the right was in him and not in the Church, and so consequently in the Bishops his successors.

Ans. First, S. Paul sendeth no Mandatum, but showeth his Apostolic power, in decreeing the incestuous person worthy of excommunication, and requiring the same to be executed by the Church, Fulk. 1. Corin. 5. sec. 2. Secondly, though Paul gave the sentence, yet was it done both in the power of Christ and the name of the whole Church: for he had decreed only that he should be excommunicate: it was not actually done: but to the due performing thereof there is required, the congregating of the Church in Christ's name, the presence of Paul in spirit by his apostolic power, & that it should be done in the name of Christ. Al this showeth, that Paul gave sentence in the name of the whole Church.

2 Paul (they say) by the preeminent power of his Ministry, pardoneth the incestuous person whom he had excommunicate, Rhemist. argument. in 1. ad Corinth.

Ans. The text is plain, that he consenteth the Church should pardon him, 2. Corinth. 2.10. To whom you forgive anything I forgive also. Here not Paul only, but the whole Church pardoneth, Fulk. ibid.

3 The Jesuits simile may be returned upon his own head: for as the eye and tongue in the body are but instruments of the life and power of the soul, which quickeneth the whole body: so the governors of the Church do execute the discipline of the Church by the spirit of Christ, which is given to the whole body.

The Protestants.

THe authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church, although the execution and judgment thereof, to avoid confusion, be committed to the governors of the Church which exercise that authority, as in the name of Christ, so in the name of the whole Church, Fulk. totidem verbis, annot. 1. Cor. 5. sect. 3.

1 Math. 18.17. If he will not hear thee tell the Church: this place proveth, that although the exercising of the keys be referred to the governors of the Church; yet the authority and right is in the whole Church: for the keys were given to the whole Church. The pastors and governors, though they be excellent and principal members of the Church, yet are they improperly called the Church, Argument. Illyrici.

2 We conclude the same also out of S. Paul's words, 1. Cor. 2.21. All things are yours, whether Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, whether things present, or things to come, and ye are Christ's, and Christ God's: Ergo, whatsoever power is in the Church, it is the Churches, not only the common use and the benefit thereof, (because it may be answered, that although the keys be only granted to the Prelates, yet they use them to the good of the Church) but the right also and possession thereof, even as the Church is the inheritance and proper possession of Christ.

3 Augustine consenteth: Ecclesia, quae fundatur in Christo, claues ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro. Tract. in Iohann. 124. The Church, which is founded upon Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: But the whole Church, and not only the Pastors, is founded and built upon Christ: Ergo.

The Papists.

[error 75] THey spare not to say, that Priests have full right to remit sins, and are not ministers only thereof and dispensers, but have full power as Christ had, and he that doubteth of their right herein, may as well doubt whether Christ had authority as man to remit sins, Rhemist. annot. John 20. sect. 3. And again, they call it an express power and commission, yea a wonderful power which is given unto Priests to remit sins, and therefore it followeth necessarily, that men should submit themselves to their judgment, for release of their sins, Annot. John 20. sect. 5.

1 They reason thus out of our Saviors own words, John 20.21. As my father hath sent me, so I send you. He showeth his fathers commission given to himself, and then in plain terms most amply imparteth the same to his Apostles: But Christ had full right to remit sins: Ergo, also the Apostles and their successors: for they have the same power that Christ had, Rhemist. annot. John 20. sect. 3.

Ans. First, it is great presumption, and spoken without any ground, to say, that Christ, by sending his Apostles into the world, gave them as full, large, and ample commission, as he himself had: for neither the Pope, in whom remaineth, as they say, the Apostolic authority, by their own confession, can do all that Christ did, as to ordain and institute Sacraments: and Christ (say they) might forgive sins without the Sacraments, which the Pope cannot do, and so consequently neither the Apostles, whose full jurisdiction he hath, in this behalf, Bellarm. de pontif. lib. 5. cap. 4. Secondly, the power therefore here granted to the Apostles, is in the name of Christ, to declare and pronounce remission of sins, according to the will of God, not properly in their own power to release or absolve sinners.

2 He breathed upon them, and gave them the holy Ghost, verse. 22. Therefore he that denieth the Priests authority to forgive sins, he must deny the holy Ghost to be God, and not to have power to remit sins, Rhem. ibid sect. 4.

Ans. What a blasphemous consequence is this? The holy Ghost hath absolute power to forgive sins: Ergo, the Apostles also, and all other Priests have the same power. First, by this means they make no difference between the fullness of power in our Savior Christ, and the communication of that power to other Ministers: of Christ it is said, that the Spirit was not given him by measure, John. 3.34. and that the holy Ghost dwelleth in him bodily: but it were great blasphemy so to say of any man, Apostle or Minister beside, which have received of the same grace, but not in the like measure that Christ hath, but the spirit is given to everyone in measure, as they have need in their several places and callings. Secondly, though we should grant, that the Apostles had the full authority of Christ actually to remit sins, which they shall never prove, yet it may be doubted, whether all Ministers, whom they call Priests, (which name we refuse not, if it be taken according to the sense of the original word Presbyter, and not for a sacrificing priesthood) have as full power, in this case, as the Apostles had, nay it is plain, they have not: for the Apostles and other in the Primitive Church, had power to discern spirits, 1. Cor. 12.10. and to give actually the bodies of the excommunicate to be vexed, and possessed of the devil, 1. Cor. 5.5. and after a strange manner to exercise power over their bodily life, as Peter did upon Ananias and Sapphira, Act. 5: Yet we rather stand upon this point, that neither the Apostles, nor any other Ministers have power actually to remit sins, then only as dispensers and stewards in the name of Christ.

The Protestants.

AL the power of binding and loosing committed to the Apostles and to the Ministers of the word and Sacraments, is, by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his word, both to pronounce forgiveness of sins to all, that are truly penitent, & the retaining of them to the obstinate and impenitent, Fulk. annot. John 20. sect. 3. So that Ministers are not made judges in this case, but only as the Lord's ambassadors, to declare the will of God out of his word.

1 There is a notable place for this purpose, 2. Corinth. 5.18. God hath reconciled us unto himself through Jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation. So then Christ is the only author of reconciliation, the Apostles are but ministers: how then say the Rhemists, that Christ himself is but a minister also of our reconciliation, yet a chief minister, whereas the Apostle maketh him the author? God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, verse. 19. We are but ambassadors for Christ, and pray you in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God: this then is the office of Ministers, not to reconcile men unto God, but to pray them to be reconciled through Christ: Christ only is the reconciler, they but ministers of reconciliation: They are but messengers and ambassadors, only to declare their Princes pleasure; their commission is certain, beyond that they cannot go. Wherefore that is a blasphemous decretal, and clean contrary to the scripture, which is ascribed but falsely, to Pontianus Bishop of Rome, which saith, that God hath Priests so familiar, that by them he forgiveth the sins of others, and reconcileth them unto him, Fox. pag. 59. But S. Paul saith, that God only by Christ reconcileth us unto himself.

2 Augustine doth very freely utter his mind concerning this matter, who putteth this objection: If men do not forgive sins, then it should seem to be false which Christ saith, Whatsoever you bind in earth is bound in heaven. He answereth: Daturus erat dominus hominibus spiritum sanctum, &c. God was to give unto men the holy Ghost, by whom their sins should be forgiven them. Spiritus dimittit, non vos; spiritus autem Deus est: Deus ergo dimittit, non vos: the spirit therefore remitteth sin, and not you: the spirit is God, God forgiveth sins, and not you. Here is one argument, God only forgiveth sins: Ergo, not man. Again, Quides homo nisi aeger sanandus? vis mihi esse medicus? mecum quaere medicum. O man what art thou that takest away my sins, but a sick man thyself? wouldest thou be my physician? nay, let us both together go seek a physician that may heal us. Lo, another argument: He cannot be a physician to others, that needeth a physician himself: he cannot reconcile others to God, who hath himself need of a reconciler. Further, he saith: Qui dimittit per hominem, potest dimittere praeter hominem: non enim minus est idoneus per se dare, qui potest per alium dare. He that can forgive sins by man, can forgive also without man: for he may as well forgive by himself, as he can do it by another. Here is then the third argument: If man do actually forgive sins, then Christ should not forgive sins without man: for the whole power is committed to man. Yea, the Rhemists affirm the same, that it is necessary we should submit our selves to the judgment of the Priest for release of our sins: if it be necessary, then sins cannot be remitted without the Priest: then is Christ's power limited, he cannot forgive without man, which is contrary to that Augustine affirmeth here.

The Papists.

AN express power (say they) is given unto Priests to remit and retain [error 76] sins: And Christ promiseth, that whose sins soever they forgive, they are forgiven of God, and whose sins soever they retain, they are retained of God, Rhemist. annot. John 20. sect. 5. Whereby it appeareth it is their opinion, which is manifest also by the practice of their Church, that at the will and pleasure of every priest exercising the keys upon earth, men are bound and loosed in heaven.

They ground this their opinion upon the generality of the words: Whosoeuers sins you remit they are remitted, John 20.23. and Math. 18.18. Whatsoever you bind in earth shall be bound in heaven.

Answer: These places are not so to be understood, as though God were bound to ratify every decree of men upon earth: for first this power is given to all lawful pastors which do hold the Apostolic faith, not to Idolatrous, ignorant and blasphemous priests, such as most, if not all, of the popish sort are. Secondly, they must decree in the earth according to God's will: Wherefore John 20.22. first Christ breatheth his spirit upon his Apostles, and then giveth them their commission: signifying hereby, that they must execute this power as they shall be directed by God's spirit: and Matth. 18.20. it followeth, that they must be assembled in the name of Christ: that is, according to Christ's rule and the direction of his word, they must bind and loose, and not at their own discretion.

The Protestants.

THat no sentence or decree of men bindeth or looseth before God in heaven, but that which is pronounced according to the will and pleasure of GOD, and by the warrant of his word, the scripture everywhere teacheth us.

1 Prover. 26.2. As the sparrow by flying escapeth, so the curse that is causeless shall not come. Isaiah 5.20. Woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good: He that justifieth the wicked and condemneth the just, they are both an abomination to GOD, Prover. 17.15. Wherefore a priest binding a penitent man, and loosing a wicked man, doth flatly transgress the law and rule of God's word: neither shall his sentence be ratified in heaven.

2 In saying that whosoeuers sins the priest bindeth or looseth, his sentence standeth in effect before God, they must needs admit one or both of these absurdities: either to grant, that a Priest cannot err in dispensing of the • eyes, which were too shameful a saying, to give so great a privilege to every ignorant and simple priest, (such as their Church hath great store of) which no mortal man can have. Saint Paul giveth warning to Timothy, who was more then a common or ordinary minister, that he lay not his hands sodaynly upon any, ad 1. Timoth. 5. verse. 22. But if Timothy so excellent a man had been free from erring in executing his function, this exhortation of Saint Paul had been needless and superfluous.

Or else, they must say that the judgment of men's souls is committed unto them: for if, look, how they pronounce upon men on earth, even so it fareth with them before GOD: then the salvation and damnation of men dependeth of their sentence: But the scripture saith, Do not judge thy brother, for we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, Rom. 14.10. Men therefore are not judges to pronounce who are saved or damned, but the judgment must be committed to Christ.

But who knoweth not that the popish Church doth arrogate unto themselves this power, to define who are Saynts in heaven, and whose souls are tormented in hell? Thus they dealt with John Hus: having condemned him, they set a crown of paper upon his head pictured with devils, saying unto him: Now we commit thy soul to the devil. At the burning of that worthy servant of God and blessed martyr, John Frith, one Doctor Cook, a fowl mouthed papist bid the people to pray no more for him, then they would for a dog. And thus they take the Lord's office out of his hand, in taking upon them to be judges of men.

3 I will conclude with Augustine's words, he saith, that sins are forgiven or not forgiven, non secundum arbitrium hominum, sed secundum arbitrium dei, & orationes sanctorum: not after the will and pleasure of men, but according to the will of God, and at the prayers of devout and holy men.

The Papists.

[error 77] BEllarmine confesseth that single life is not imposed upon Ministers by the law of God, for there is no precept either in the old or new testament, that forbiddeth Ministers to marry: but it is a positive law of the Church, most ancient and most just, kept and observed even since the Apostles time. And therefore it is not now lawful for Ministers to marry, cap. 18. lib. de Clericis.

1 1. Timoth. 2.3. the Apostle saith, that no man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life: But to be married and to have care of household, are counted amongst the affairs and business of this life: Ergo, a Minister who is the Lord's soldier, ought not to entangle himself therewith, Bellarmine.

Ans. First, the Jesuit before confessed, that they had no scripture against Ministers marriage, how is it then, that now he pleadeth scripture? Secondly, we must put the Jesuit in mind of his own exposition of this place, lib. 5. de pontif. cap. 10. where, this place being alleged against the temporal dominion of Ecclesiastical persons, he answereth, that this place only forbiddeth negotiationes, and mercimonia, merchandise and traffick in the world, not regimen politicum, not political regiment. If then the political care of a city, province, or common-wealth be no impediment, in his judgment, to the spiritual warfare: much less without all question is the domestical care of one family, the charge of wife and children. Thirdly, we utterly deny, that marriage is an hindrance or let to the calling of Ministers: nay we say, that it is an help and comfort to those that have not the proper gift of continency.

2 The Jesuit giveth diverse instances, wherein marriage is a let and impediment to ministers: As, it hindereth their prayer, their preaching, their alms and liberality to the poor, for they have wife and children to care for. Bellarmine.

Answer: First, belike you esteem of marriage as of an unholy and impure thing, that a man can neither pray, nor do the office of a Christian performing the duty to his wife: and indeed one of your companions calleth marriage a profanation of sacred orders. Greg. Martin. discover. cap. 15. sect. 11. Whereas the Apostle calleth it an honorable state, Heb. 13. and it was instituted in Paradise, whereas before the fall of man there was no unclean thing. Secondly, we deny not, but that abuse of marriage both in ministers and other lay-men, is an impediment to all holy actions: and therefore Saint Paul giveth general Counsel to all both ministers and others, that they which have wives should be as though they had none, 1. Cor. 7.29. that is, should live soberly in marriage, and not give themselves to the wantonness of the flesh. Thirdly, neither doth marriage hinder hospitality: for Saint Paul requiring that a minister should be harborous, 1. Tim. 3.2. giveth also rules concerning the government of his family, his wife and children. verse 4.11. For to whom may he better commit the care of household affairs then to his wife? And that family which is guided by a careful & godly housewife, we see by experience, to yield more relief to the poor, and give entertainment to strangers, then those houses which have none. And where it is objected, that Ministers will care altogether for their children: It hath been seen that single priests in time of popery, have been more covetous and greedy to enrich their kindred, then married Ministers have cared for the provision of their children.

3 Single life by the Apostle is preferred before the married estate, and therefore fittest for Ministers: for he that is married careth for the things of the world, 1. Cor. 7 33. Rhemist.

Ans. First, single life is preferred before marriage, in all men, & not only in Ministers: And therefore as lay-men are not bound to single life, though it be in itself more convenient, so neither ought ministers to be. 2. Though a thing in it self be best, yet is it not universally best for every man: as riches are better then poverty, because they are God's blessing: yet is it not best for every man to be rich: God seeth it good, that some men should be poor: So single life is the best for those that have the gift of chastity, that can with a quiet conscience live single: otherwise matrimony were much better: for Saint Paul, that wisheth that everyone would live single as he did, yet afterward saith, It is better to marry then to burn: So that by the Apostles judgment, to marry is best for him that hath not the gift of continency. Jewel. pag. 232. defense. Apolog.

The Protestants.

THat it is not only lawful but convenient, that all men both Ministers and others, that have not received a proper gift of continency, should marry, and that it is agreeable and consonant to the word of God: thus we show it.

1 The scriptures are most plain for the marriage of Ministers, 1. Timoth. 3.2. Saint Paul saith a Bishop, and generally every Minister, may be the husband of one wife: and verse 11. their wives are described, howe they ought to behave themselves: Let their wives be honest. Ergo, it is lawful for them to be married. Bellarmine answereth, that Saint Paul speaketh of the wives which they had before their calling and ordaining, not those, which they should marry after. But there appeareth no such thing out of the text: Nay Saint Paul, say we, had liberty as well as others, to lead about a sister a wife, even after he was an Apostle, 1. Corinth. 9. Wherefore it is as lawful afterward as afore. Bellarmine answereth: We must thus read, a Sister a woman, and it is like they were women, that did minister unto the Apostles and followed them. We reply: First, the word Sister, doth imply a woman, and therefore it had been an improper and needless speech, to say, a sister a woman: therefore we must rather read, a sister a wife. Secondly, if they were other women, which ministered of their substance, what need the Apostles to be maintained of the Churches? if they ministered but in their service and attendance, who were more fit to do it and to follow them from place to place then their wives? Thirdly, the phrase of leading about a sister, importeth a superiority and authority, such as the husband hath over his wife.

Another place we have, Hebr. 13.3. Marriage is honorable among all men: Ergo, amongst Ministers. Bellarmine. If it were meant of all marriages, then to marry within the degrees of consanguinity, were also honorable. Answer: This is a very childish cavil: First, he might have read further, And the bed undefiled: Saint Paul therefore speaketh of lawful marriage: and indeed the other joining and coupling of men and women together contrary to GOD'S law, is not to be counted Matrimony or Wedlocke, but Incest rather and Fornication, as the brother to marry his brothers wife, and such like. Secondly, Saint Paul saith, not all marriages are honorable, but marriage is honorable for all men; the generality is not of the thing, but the persons: Wherefore we do fittly conclude out of this place, that marriage is lawful and commendable even among ministers. argum. Calvin.

Further Saint Paul saith, For avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife, 1. Corinth. 7.2. Here is no restraint for Ministers. Bellarm. this is to be understood of those that have not made a vow of continency. Answer: First, our Savior Christ commandeth no such vows: it is a cruel Antichristian yoke laid upon Ministers, to bind them, when they receive orders, to vow single life: & therefore your Antichristian decree ought not to abridge the general liberty granted by the Apostle. Secondly, the end of marriage is general, to avoid fornication, and therefore the remedy also is general: for every man having not a proper gift of continency, may be in danger of that inconvenience, if he be denied the ordinary help. Melancthon.

Again, 1. Timoth. 4. to forbid marriage is called a doctrine of devils: but the Popish Church forbiddeth marriage. Bellarm. We do not forbid marriage to any, but we require single life of all that are entered into orders, which, it is at their own choice to receive, or to refuse. Ans. First, it is necessary that some should receive orders, and be consecrate to the Church ministry: wherefore requiring this condition of all such to live single, though particularly you prohibit not this man or that to marry, yet generally you prohibit the whole calling, which is worse. Secondly, if you say you do not forbid marriage simply to all: no more did the Manichees, for they suffered their scholars and auditors to marry. And Saint Augustine's words are general. Ille prohibit matrimonium, qui illud malum esse dicit: he forbiddeth marriage, that thinketh it is evil: you therefore forbidding marriage, must needs hold opinion that is wicked and evil.

2 This restraint of the marriage of Ministers, hath not been of ancient time in the Church, but imposed upon the Church of late, 1000. year after Christ: Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus anno 180. had seven of his progenitors before him Bishops of the same See. In the Nicene Council Paphnutius stood up, and stayed the decree, that should have past, for restraining of the marriage of Ministers, and it is said, Synodus landauit sententiam Paphnutij : The Synod commended Paphnutius sentence. Sozomen. lib. 1. cap. 11. Gregory the father of Gregory was Bishop of Nazianzum. The Greek Church never yet received this popish decree of single life, and their Bishops are married at this day. Bellarmine saith, that the Church of Rome hath dispensed with them, cap. 18. Ergo if the Pope would dispence with the Latin Church, it might be lawful enough then for Ministers to marry; wherefore it is but a human constitution. Again, it is false that they have dispensed with the Greek Church: they care not for their dispensations, but use their own Christian liberty: neither was the Greek Church ever subject to the Bishop of Rome.

Thus we see, that in times past marriage was lawful for all men, until Pope Nicholas the second, Alexander the second, and Gregory the seventh, that notable sorcerer and adulterer: for these three coming together, one not long after another, began by public decree to restrain Priests marriage: not long after them, Anselm began to play the Rex here in England, anno 1104. who stoutely proceeded in his ungodly purpose, and enacted that married Priests should either leave their wives, or their benefices. At which time 200. Priests at once came barefoot to the Kings palace, to make complaint: And for all Anselm's Popelike and outrageous proceedings against married Priests, yet they continued married well nigh two hundred years after Anselm's time, do what he could: and thus it is manifest, that the restraint of Ministers marriage is no ancient thing, but then began most to be urged, when Antichrist fully was revealed to the world, when as the orders of Friers came in and were confirmed and privileged under Boniface 8. about anno 1300.

3 What better argument can we have against this Popish decree, then the great uncleanness, and foul enormities that have been brought, by the means thereof, into the Church? In the time of Gregory the first, who enjoined his Clergy to live single, commanding on a time his servants to catch him some fish, out of his Motes and Ponds, instead of fish they brought unto him six thousand heads of young children: whereupon, he fetching a great sigh with himself, commended then the saying of the Apostle, It is better to marry then to burn. Bellarmine hath no better answer then to deny the story, which notwithstanding is found in the Epistle of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, which he sent to Pope Nicholas. Fox. pag. 1155.

In Anselm's time, after the restraint of Ministers marriage, great rumors, and complaint was brought to him, of the execrable vice of Sodomitry, which began to reign in the Clergy. Pope Pius the second said, he saw many weighty causes, why wives should be taken away from Priests, but he saw more why they should be restored to them again. Bishop Jewel Apol. cap. 8. diuis. 3. Bernard saith, Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile coniugium, &c. Take from the Church honorable Matrimony, shall you not replenish it with incestuous persons, concubinaries, Sodomitical vices? Hereupon the popish Catholics seeing their own infirmity, began thus to salve up the matter, Si non caste, tamen caute: if thou deal not chastely, yet deal charily. Yea they are not ashamed thus to write, If any of the Priests should be found embracing of a woman, it must be expounded and presupposed, that he doth it to bless her.

I but (saith Bellarmine ) these are the abuses of single life, will you condemn a good thing, because of the abuse? by the same reason (saith he) coelum & terra tollenda sunt, Heaven and earth must be taken away, because they were abused of the heathen and taken for God's. cap. 21.

Answer: First, we say not, that these be the fruits of single life, which Saint Paul commendeth in all those that have the gift, but of this co-acted and constrained Popish Virginitie, which is imposed indifferently upon all, and cannot have any good use: secondly, when you can prove that restraining of Ministers marriage is of God's ordinance, as it is certain Heaven and earth are of his making, then we will grant unto you, that it may have a right use, and for the abuse ought not utterly to be abolished.

4 Lastly, Augustine saith, Quae nubere volunt, & ideo non nubunt quia impune non possunt, melius nuberent, quàm vrerentur, id est, quàm occulta flamma concupiscentiae in ipsa conscientia vastarentur. Those Virgins, which would marry, but cannot, because of restraint, and reproach, might better marry then burn, that is to say, then with the secret flame of concupiscence, to be wasted and consumed in their conscience. Wherefore it followeth, that all they, both Ministers, votaries & Virgines, that have not power to abstain, should do better, for all their profession and vow, to marry, then to burn.

The Papists.

THey deny not, but that Bishops and Ministers, having been once married, [error 78] are rightly ordained, so that afterward they do not company with their wives: but they which have been either themselves twice married, or have married a widow, which had a husband before, are utterly incapable of holy orders, Bellarmine cap. 23. Rhemist. Timoth. 3. sect. 4. and this they call Bigamy.

1 They reason thus out of Saint Paul's words, 1. Timoth. 4.2. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife: that is, say they, that no kind a way was, Bigamus, or had two wives either at once, or one after another: And they prove their interpretation thus: First, as Saint Paul describeth a widow of the Church, 1. Timoth. 5.9. that hath been the wife of one husband, so here he saith of a Bishop, that he should be the husband of one wife: but that is meant, successive, of one husband after another: for it was never seen that one woman should have more husbands then one at once, nor never suffered either amongst the Jews or Gentiles: therefore it must be so taken here, a husband of one wife: that is, who hath been but once married, as it is taken there, a wife of one husband, that never had more, not only simul, at once, but not successive, not successively one after another, Bellarmine cap. 23.

Ans. First, there were many women both among the Jews and Gentiles, that had forsaken their first husbands, and were unlawfully coupled to others, and so had moe husbands at once, and likewise many men that had done the like to their wives, but afterward repented, and were converted to the Christian faith, but yet were not admitted to any public office in the Church, because of their former infamous life. Of such the Apostle speaketh in both these places, and not of those that married one wife, or one husband after another. It is therefore great boldness, and a greater untruth to say, that there were none such heard of in those days: for although it were neither lawful then nor now, yet both many such were heard of in those days, and it were no hard matter to find out some now among the papists, that have had more then one wife at once. Secondly, he is not to be counted Bigamus, or Digamus, that is coupled and joined to one wife after another lawfully, but he that unlawfully at once enjoyeth more then one. Fulk. Annot. Timoth. 5. sect. 6. & cap. 3. sect. 4.

2 Again say they, the high Priest in the law was not permitted to marry a widow, Levite. 21.13. Which law being observed in the high Priest, ought much more to be kept now, Rhemist.

Answer: That law concerning the high Priest, did only appertain to himself, who was a figure of Christ: neither can it be extended to the Ministers of the Gospel, no more then any other partes of his office, that were peculiar to that state and calling, Fulk. Annot. 1. Timoth. 3. sect. 4.

The Protestants.

THat it is not by the word of God forbidden, that any man should marry the second, yea the third time, after the decease of his wife, neither that he is to be counted unchaste or given to wantonness in so doing (much less he that in his first marriage taketh a widow,) neither that, to have been twice married ought to be a bar or a stop from entering into the state and calling of the Ministry, if otherwise the man be qualified and furnished with sufficient graces for that calling: thus it is proved.

1 They that cut off such, as have been twice married, from behaving any calling in the Church, do savor of the heresy of Montanus, into the which also Tertulliane fell, who condemned second marriage: for if once marriage be no impediment nor prejudice to him that is to be ordained, but second marriage be, then do they disallow second marriage, (because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister) if not simply, yet they make it less lawful, nay more offensive, and subject to obloquy and reproach. But the scripture maketh no difference between first & second marriage: S. Paul saith, For avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife: he saith not, his first wife: but generally: so that it is lawful for avoiding of fornication to marry the second or the third wife, as well as the first.

2 If it be as lawful to marry the second wife, as the first, if it be for avoiding of fornication, then second marriage doth no more hinder the receiving of orders then the first: but the antecedent is true: for what should make the second marriage less lawful? not any duty that the wife or the husband oweth to the party deceased: for they are free in that respect, & set at liberty, Rom. 7.3. Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before: for he that marrieth the second time, may have as good cause to do it, for avoiding of fornication, as he had at the first.

3 Second marriage, make the worst of it you can, is not so great a blot as fornication, or adultery, or to have a Concubine: but these were no lets of priesthood in popery: Nay, we read that Augustine in the purer age of the Church, that confesseth he had two Concubines, yet afterward was made presbyter, and at the last a Bishop for all that. Wherefore, there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man, seeing a fornicator is free.

Lastly, of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be: That it is as lawful to marry the second time & the third, as the first. Ait Apostolus, mulier alligata est viro, quamdiu vir eius viuit; non dixit primus, secundus, tertius, aut quartus: The woman is bound (saith the Apostle) so long as her husband liveth; he saith not, the first husband, second, third, or fourth: So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death, as when she was a virgin. Yet if she can content her self with her widows estate, and have the gift of continency, she shall do better not to marry: But if she have not, it is better to marry (S. Paul saith not, the first, second or third time, but so often as she hath need) rather then to burn.

The Papists.

THey confess, that Peter and other of the Apostles were married, but after their calling they had no company with their wives, Rhemist. Math. 8. sect. 3 [error 79] And so ought the Ministers of the Gospel (saith Bellarmine ) be kept from the use of their wives, to whom they were married before their calling.

1 The Priests of the law were bound to withdraw themselves during the time of their service, while they attended upon the sacrifice, and to forbear the company of their wives: much more the Priests of the law, that must always offer sacrifices, must be always free from matrimony, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 10.

Ans. 1. The Levitical priesthood did represent and shadow forth the priesthood of Christ, and their legal cleansings, washings, abstinence, purifyings, did show forth the holiness and perfection of the priesthood of Christ: wherefore the law of their abstinence doth no more bind us, then other of their legal purifications: they have their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the new testament, nor any sacrifice in the Church for sin, but only that sacrifice of atonement upon the Cross: but our sacrifices are spiritual, of praise and thanksgiving; therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law, to those that are no priests, Fox. pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life, we grant, is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospel, as it was then in the priests of the law: therefore they ought as well to have liberty to marry, seeing matrimony is the best remedy against fornication and uncleanness of life.

2 Another argument they pick out of S. Paul's words, 1. Corinth. 7.5. Defraude you not one another, unless it be by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. If the lay man cannot pray, unless he abstain from his wife, the Priest, that must always pray, must always abstain, Rhemist.

Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers always as well as the Priest, and so by this reason, neither ought any lay man to perform his duty to his wife, if it were an hindrance to prayer. 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all prayer, but of a special kind, which, to be made more fervent, requireth fasting and abstinence, which kind is not always necessary, but upon some certain occasion. 3. It is so far off that a lay man cannot pray, unless he abstain from his wife, that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is unmarried, or abstaineth, if he have not dominion over his lust, Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 7.5.

The Protestants.

NEither the Apostles forsook the company of their wives, after they were called and chosen of Christ, neither ought the Ministers of the Gospel to renounce, abandon, and forswear the society and fellowship of their wives: but rather to live with them in all temperance and sobriety, for the good example of others:

1 It is proved out of the 1. Cor. 9.5. that Peter & the other Apostles did lead about their wives in their company, and S. Paul there saith, that he also might use the same liberty. Likewise, 1. Timoth. 3.5. S. Paul giveth rules concerning the house and family of the Minister, his children, the behavior of their wives. verse 11. But where, I pray you, is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be, then with her husband? By these places it is apparent, that Ministers wives were not excluded from their husbands company: as a thousand year after & more it was decreed by Anselm, that they should not dwell in house with their husbands, nor talk with them without two or three witnesses, Fox. pag. 1167.

2 It is clean contrary to the scripture. First, our Savior saith, whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, Math. 5.32. By this rule, therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismiss his wife, but for fornication: Ergo, it is not lawful because of his calling, or upon any other color to send her away. Secondly. S. Paul saith, They ought not to defraud one another but for a time, and that with consent, 1. Corinth. 7.5. Therefore if the wife will not consent, her husband cannot go from her: nay, though there be consent, yet they must be asunder but for a time: they cannot by consent altogether break off, and dissolve their marriage, which was made before God, though they would never so fain themselves, unless it be for fornication, then without consent the marriage knot is broken.

3 Peter left not the company of his wife after he was made an Apostle: for he had a daughter called Petronilla, of whom the popish legends write much holiness, which must needs be borne after he was called Peter. And again, it is proved by her age, for she was so young in the persecutiō under Domitian, that Flaccus the County desired her in marriage: but if she had been borne before Peters Apostleship, she must have been threescore year old at that time, or hard upon, Fulk. Math. 8. sect. 3.

4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter: Vna sola esse causa posset, qua te id. quod vouisti, non solum non hortaremur, verumetiam prohiberemus implere, si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi, seu carnis ins • rmitate recusaret, Epistol. 45. There may be one cause, and no more, which would make me, not only to move you to perform that which you have vowed, but to dissuade and forbid you, namely, if your wife by reason of her weakness, should refuse to bear the yoke with you. Therefore, by Augustine's sentence, neither ought a Minister that is married, perform the vow of continency which he made, without consent of his wife: for he speaketh generally of vows made by those that are joined in Wedlocke.

The Papists.

[error 80] THe payment of tithes is a natural duty, that men owe to God in all laws, and to be given to his Priests in his behalf for their honor and livelihood, Rhemist. annot. 7. Hebr. sect. 4.

1 Jacob vowed to pay tithes to God, before the law, Genes. 28. Ergo, it is a perpetual law. Rhemist.

Ans. One Papist shall answer another at this time. Bellarmine proveth by this example the clean contrary, that the payment of tithes is not moral, because it did not bind before the law of Moses: for Jacob made a voluntary vow to pay his tithes, upon a condition: but if he had been bound absolutely to pay tithes, they should have been paid without any such condition: It was therefore a voluntary and a frank offering in Jacob.

2 Christ confirmeth the law of tithes, Math. 23.23. though he prefer the works of mercy and judgment, yet he saith that the other ought not to be left undone, speaking of the paying of tithes, Rhemist. ibid.

Ans. We must consider in what time our Savior Christ so spake unto the Pharisees: for as yet neither the law nor the ceremonies thereof were fully abrogated: Christ was circumcised, & Mary his mother purified according to the law, Luk. 2.21.22. Our Savior also biddeth the Leper to show himself to the Priest, and offer a gift as Moses commanded, Math. 8.4. Yet none of all these ceremonies do now stand in force, though Christ did them at that time, and bad them to be done. The same answer may serve also concerning his injunction to the Pharisees as touching their tithes.

The Protestants.

THe law of paying tithes did borrow part of the moral, part of the iudicial, and part of the ceremonial law. The moral part therefore, is the equity of the law, which is perpetual, that as the Levites then lived of the tenth, so the Ministers at all times ought sufficiently to be provided and cared for. The judicial part was in this, that as the Levites were not much less in common account then the tenth part, being one of the tribes, (though in proportion of number, they made welneere the thirtith part: for the rest of the tribes were numbered to six hundred, three thousand, five hundred and fifty persons, Numbers 1. the Levites made but two and twenty thousand, Numb. 3.) As I say the Levites made one whole tribe, and were not much less then the tenth part in that account, being in number the thirteenth tribe, for there were twelve beside. So it was thought reasonable that the tenth parte of their brethren's goods should be allotted unto them: which being a judicial and politic constitution of that country, doth neither necessarily bind Christians now, neither is forbidden, but left in that respect indifferent. Thirdly, the ceremony of the law was in this, because the tenth was due to the priests and Levites for their service at the altar, and as belonging to their priesthood: In which sense tithes are neither due now unto Ministers, nor in any such respect can be challenged, seeing the Priesthood of the law is gone, and all the ceremonies thereof: Whereof although it be a wise and politic constitution, that the people should pay their tithes, and may conveniently be retained, yet is it not now of necessity imposed upon Christians, as though no other provision for the Church could serve but that.

1 Bellarmine thus reasoneth (for herein he is an adversary to our Rhemists ) (one Jesuit against another) If the law of tithes be moral, then the other precept annexed to this law was moral also, that the Levites, because they lived of the offerings and tithes, should have no patrimony or inheritance beside. And by this reason every Minister now ought to resign such inheritance and possessions, as are left him by his friends: which is not to be admitted. Ergo, neither the other law standeth necessarily in force, Bellarm. cap. 25.

2 Saint Paul saith in flat words, If the priesthood be changed, of necessity there must also be a change of the law, Heb. 7.12. But the priesthood of the law is altered and changed, Ergo, also the law of the priesthood, and so consequently the ceremonial duty of tithes.

3 In Augustine's time, it was no general law nor custom in the Church, that tithes should be paid. Praecidite & deputate aliquid fixum ex annuis fructib. vel quotidianis quaestibus: defaulke, saith he, and appoint some certain portion, either of your yearly fruits, or your ordinary and daily gains. Decimas vis? decimas exime: Will you make choice to pay tithes? then let that be the portion. And yet this is no great matter: for the Pharisees, whose righteousness you ought to exceed, paid their tithes: Tu vix millesimam das: Thou scarce payest the thousand part: Tamen non reprehendo, vel hoc fac, sic sitio, vt ad istas micas gaudeam: Yet I find not fault: do so still: for I so thirst after your well-doing, that I refuse not your very crumbs. We see then, that then the payment of tithes was voluntary: Augustine refuseth not the ten hundred, that is, millesimam partem, the thousand part, which he calleth their crumbs.

The Papists.

COncerning tithes or their equivalent due to Christ & the priesthood of the [error 81] New Testament, Rhemist. annot. Heb. 7.4. this then is their opinion, that the priesthood of the Gospel being more excellent then the priesthood of the Law and their sacrifice, which they offer up in the Mass, being of greater worthiness, they may with better right challenge tithes, then the priests of the law did for their service at the altar: So that tithes are due to the Church only because of the priesthood, not for any other duty appertaining to that office, as preaching the word, ministering the sacraments, or any such.

Abraham paid tithes, they say, to Melchizedek, which was the priest of the most high God in offering the forms of bread & wine, wherein Melchizedek did sacrifice: Ergo, tithes are now due to the priests of the Gospel and new law, which are all after the order of Melchizedek, Rhemist. Hebr. 7. sect. 4. & 8.

Answer: First, Melchizedek's priesthood consisted not in offering bread and wine to God, but brought them forth to refresh Abraham: neither were they forms of bread and wine only, as you imagine, but very material bread and wine: for if Melchizedek's priesthood had consisted therein, the Apostle would not have omitted the chief thing, wherein Christ's priesthood was shown forth, as he doth, making no mention at all of it. Heb. 7. Secondly, again it is great blasphemy to say, that every popish priest is after the order of Melchizedek, nay that the proper act of Christ's priesthood consisteth in the perpetual offering of his body & blood in the Church: for by this reason every impure priest doth more properly offer the body of Christ in the Mass, then it was offered by himself upon the cross: thē the which, what greater blasphemy can be uttered? And yet they are not ashamed to speak it: yea the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, (say they) was after the order of Aaron ; and not after the order of Melchisdech, and so they prefer every popish priest offering in the Mass, before Jesus Christ sacrificing himself upon the Cross: contrary to the scripture, which maketh this difference between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchizedek ; that the priests of the law were many, because they were taken away by death: But Christ's priesthood is eternal, because he dieth not, Heb. 7.23. But if there should be many priests after Melchizedek's order, there should herein be no difference at all: Wherefore seeing Melchizedek's priesthood only resteth in Christ, and is not translated to any other; and that there is now no sacrifice left but spiritual, of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13.15. it followeth that by Melchizedek's right no tithes are now due unto the Church, neither in any such regard ought to be challenged.

The Protestants.

TIthes, or their equivalent are not due to the Church in respect of any sacrificing priesthood, of which sort there is none in the new testament ordained to continue: but for other pastoral duties, and principally the preaching and dispensing of the word, and instructing of the people.

1 If there were any such priesthood, and tithes in that right did appertain to the Church: it is most like that our Savior Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them. But there is no one precept in the new testament concerning paying of tithes, but only for a sufficient maintenance for the ministers of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9.14. Gal. 6.6. Fulk. Hebr. 7. sect. 4.

2 Saint Paul everywhere, so oft as he showeth the duty of Christians in relieving and maintaining their pastors, maketh only mention of sowing of spiritual things, 1. Cor. 9.11. and of teaching and instructing, Gal. 6.6. Ergo, tithes are due unto Pastors and Ministers only or especially for their feeding and instructing, and sowing spiritual seed, which is the word of God.

3 There is no such sacrificing priesthood now in the Church, as we have partly shown before, and shall of purpose more fully declare it afterward: for everywhere in the new testament spiritual sacrifices are commanded: and all Christians are made Kings and Priests unto God, Apocal. 1.6. Other priesthood we read of none. Wherefore in that respect tithes cannot be due.

Lastly, Augustine saith: Si mendicum non contemnis, quanto magis bonem, per quem trituratur haec area: If thou despisest not a beggar, how much more oughtest thou to have regard of the ox that treadeth out the corn on the floor: That is, the Minister that preacheth the Gospel: for so Saint Paul expoundeth it 1. Timoth. 5.17.

The Papists.

[error 82] THey make this profession to be as ancient as the time of our Savior Christ, and prove the beginning thereof both out of the new and old Testament.

1 Helias and Helizaeus were Eremites, and lived without wives, neither possessed any riches: Ergo, this profession of life is most ancient, Bellarm. cap. 5. Rhemist. annot. in Mark. 9.3.

Answer: First, the argument followeth not: they had no wives, nor riches, Ergo, were Eremites: for even amongst the papists themselves many were kept from wives (as their priests) and yet were neither Monks nor Eremites. Secondly, though we read not that Helisaeus was married, yet the sons of the prophets were, that lived as it were in the same College with him, 2. King. 4.1. which Bellarmine maketh a College of Monks and Eremites: and saith very untruly, that they all lived without wives, cap. 5. Thirdly, though Elias and Elisaeus were sometime in the wilderness, yet they always remained not, neither lived there, Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3.

2 John the Baptist a perfect pattern of Eremitical life, for living in the desert and wilderness, for his rough apparel, for abstaining from all delicate meat, Rhemist. annot. Math. 3.1.

Answer: First, John Baptists calling was singular and extraordinary, and therefore cannot be made an author of any ordinary profession. Secondly, we deny not but his life was austere, and that he made his abode in a solitary place, yet there were houses and villages not far off: his apparel also was course cloth, made of the hard hairs of Camels: his food was of locusts and wild honey, the usual and common meat of that country: he was an extraordinary preacher of repentance, and shown in him self an example of austere life, as it became the forerunner of Christ: But being no minister of the Gospel, but the last prophet of the law, he cannot be a pattern of an ordinary profession under the Gospel, Fulk. annot. Matth. 3. sect. 1.

3 Nay Bellarm. fetcheth his monkish order from a more ancient beginning, thē from Elias, & John the Baptist: yea from before the flood: for Enos, saith he, seemeth to have brought in some stricter kind of life, and peculiar manner of worshipping God: whereas the text saith, that he began to call upon the name of God: that is, after another manner: for Adam, Seth, Abel, before this time called upon the name of God. cap. 5.

Answer: First, who would have thought, that there had been Monks and Eremites before the flood, if the Jesuit had not said it, or that this text, which he allegeth, could have proved it? The argument followeth not: Enos brought in a peculiar worship of God, therefore was founder of the Eremiticall life: for he brought in the true worship of God: but the other is superstitious and erroneous. Secondly, Tremellius readeth more agreeably to the Hebrew, Tum nomē Dei coeptum est inuocando profanari : then the name of God began to be profaned in calling upon, that is, his worship began to be corrupted: for the Hebrew word signifieth, both to invocate and call upon God, as also to corrupt, pollute, or profane. Thirdly, if we read as they do, The name of God began to be called upon: it only showeth a restoring and renewing of the true worship of God, which was polluted by the posterity of Cain, whose stock and family is set down in that chapter, Gen. 4.

The Protestants.

WE see then that this Monastical and solitary kind of life hath no proof nor ground out of the scriptures, either by precept or example: Nay this kind of profession was not known in the Church, for diverse hundred years after Christ; how could then the Apostles be the founders of this order? And though the name of Monks be of some antiquity in the Church, yet they were far unlike unto Popish Monks, that for these many years have pestered the Church.

1 It is certain, as Jerome witnesseth, that Antonius, and his disciples Amathas and Macarius, were the first beginners of Monkish profession, three hundred year after Christ, Centur. 4. cap. 6. Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3.

2 The beginning of Monks, was not for the more merit, and to do penance for their own sins and the sins of the world, for Antonius the first Monk confessed, that Christ only suffered for the sins of the world: but the first occasion was given in the time of persecution, when as men were not suffered to worship God aright publicly: and therefore they fled into the wilderness: Rhemist. Math. 3. sect. 3. But now seeing the Christian faith is openly professed, they have no such causes to seek solitary and secret places.

3 The popish Monks are altogether unlike theirs: First, they lived in solitary places, far from resort of people: but the popish Mock-monks live in Cities and the frequency of the people, Fulk. annot. Math. 3. sect. 3. Secondly, the Monks in times past labored with their hands: but the popish fatbellies pampered themselves in idleness. Thirdly, they are altogether unlike in life and doctrine as we shall see more at large afterward. Fulk. ibid.

The Papists.

[error 83] THey say that imitation of diverse holy men, as of Saint Francis, Saint Benet, Saint Dominick, which hath brought in diverse sects and orders of Religious men, do tend all to the imitation of Christ, Rhemist. annot. Philip. cap. 3. sect. 2.1. Thess. 1.2.

This their assertion they would ground upon the Apostles words, Philip. 3.17. Be ye followers of me brethren: Rhemist.

Answer: First, Saint Paul would have them no otherwise to follow him, then he did Christ, 1. Cor. 11.1. Neither gave any other rules to his followers, then he had learned of Christ, as the patrons of the Monkish sects have done. Secondly, Neither did Saint Paul erect a new order of Paulians, as Franciscus did of Franciscans, Dominick of Dominicans. Thirdly, Saint Paul was a persuader of unity, not a maker of divisions among Christians: as the Monks & Friers have done, one sort persecuting another for their opinions even to death. Fulk. annot. 1. Thess. 1. sect. 2. Fox. pag. 798.

The Protestants.

COntrariwise we affirm, that it is a great derogation to Christ when the people shall say, I follow the religion of Augustine, the religion of Francis, another saith, I hold of Dominick, another, I hold of Jesus, as the Jesuits do: Fulk. Philip. 3. verse. 17.

1 Saint Paul reproveth the Corinthians, because they made the like sects amongst themselves: one said I am Paul's, another, I am Apolloes, and concludeth that therefore they were carnal, 1. Cor. 3.4. And further, he saith, they should not rejoice in men, for all things were theirs, whether Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, ver. 21.22. That is, they were not masters of their faith, to institute new religions and sects, but the Ministers and servants of the Lord's inheritance: If therefore it was not lawful to say, I hold of Paul, I hold of Cephas: neither is it lawful to say, I hold of Dominick, I hold of Francis: I hold of Jesus: for seeing they make their sects, and Jesus maketh his, it is evident, that they are not all referred to the imitation of Jesus: for then they might all as well be called Jesuits.

2 The number of Monks and Friers was almost infinite, sects upon sects, and new orders daily were devised, as Augustinians, Bernardines, Carmelites, Carthusians, Dominicanes, Franciscans, and a great sort more, to the number of an hundred sects, as they are reckoned by Master Fox. pag. 260. and Tilmane Heshus. setteth down 65, several sects or rather schisms of Monks, loc. 25. error 10. This irksome rabble therefore of Monks is fitly shadowed forth by the swarm of Locusts, which came up out of the bottomless pit, Apocal. 9.4. And verily as the Locusts and Grashoppers consume and devour the fruits of the earth, so the begging-Friers, and idle Monks devoured the goods of the people, and corrupted the doctrine of the Church.

3 Lastly, this division of Monkery into sects and sundry orders, is of no great antiquity: they were not known in Augustine's time, who knew no other name of them, then Monks: for he wrote a book of purpose, de opere Monachorum : of the labor of Monks: But other names of Carmelites, Carthusians, Franciscans, or such like were not heard of in the Church in those days: but came in long after in the time of Innocentius 3. about anno 1212. many years after Augustine, Fox. pag. 259.

The Papists.

THey hold it as lawful, and as free a thing for Christians to bind themselves by vows unto God, as it was used and practiced of the Jews in the time of the [error 85] law.

1 Isaiah 19.21. They shall know the Lord in that day, and do sacrifice and oblation, and vow vows unto God and perform them. This prophecy is concerning Christians, which should in the time of the Gospel make vows unto God, Bellarm. cap. 17.

Ans. The Prophet doth, by the external service of God used in the Church at that time, set forth the spiritual worship of God in the Church of Christ: for Jewish vows shall be no more then in force, then their sacrifices and oblations. Also verse. 19. the Prophet saith, that an Altar shall be set up in Egypt, and verse. 18. They shall speak the language of Canaan: But these things were not literally, but mystically performed, neither is it necessary the other should.

2 Psal. 76.11. Vow unto God and perform: Ergo, vows now are lawful, Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. It appeareth by the text, that it was a commandment unto the Jews, and for that time: for it followeth, Al ye that are round about him: that is, the Levites and Priests that dwelt round about the temple. And bring presents to him that ought to be feared: but now Christians bring no such external presents and gifts, therefore it cannot be properly understood of them.

The Protestants.

WE do not condemn all vows, neither deny, but that a Christian in some cases may vow, as presently it followeth to be shown: But Jewish vows are utterly unlawful, such as the vows of the Nazarites were, Numb. 6. as to abstain from wine and strong drink, not to shave their hair, and such like: if we place religion in such vows.

1 Their vows were ceremonious, and consisted in external rites, which were shadows and significations of spiritual things: as not to cut their hair, not to touch any dead thing, to abstain from wine and strong drink: But all shadows are now gone and abolished: and such external usages are unprofitable, as were those precepts of the false Apostles, Touch not, taste not, handle not: which all perish with the using, and are the commandments of men, as S. Paul saith, Coloss. 2.21.22. Such precepts notwithstanding, Monks & Friers at this day do bind themselves unto: for it is not lawful for them to touch silver nor to taste flesh, according to the strict and superstitious rules of their Patrones.

2 The Nazarites were by their vows separated unto God, Numb. 6.2. that is, were counted as more holy, during their vows, and better accepted of before God. But now God is not pleased by any such external rites, or bodily services: In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love, Galath. 5.6.

3 S. Paul saith, He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, Galath. 5.3. He that keepeth any one ceremony of the law, doth make himself a servant to the whole law: for if after the profession of the Nazarites, they will vow not to drink wine, not to shave their heads, hereby the better to please God: why are they not also purified, and bring an offering according to the law, as Paul did, who because of the infirmity of the Jews, was agreed with four other men which had a vow, to be purified according to the law? But this S. Paul did being amongst the Jews, who cried out against him as a breaker of the law, lest he should be scandalous unto them.

Augustine thus notably writeth concerning this matter: Sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducenda erant quodammodo ad sepulchrum, non deserenda continuo, vel sicut canibus proijcienda. The ceremonies of the law (saith he) were not presently to be cast off, but as dead bodies must be brought to the grave with some seemly pomp of their friends, and not to be cast unto dogs. Thus he saith, that in the Apostles time all Jewish ceremonies were not in act abolished, though they were already as dead carcasses, that is, by right deprived of life: yet they required some space to be honourably laid down, and as it were buried. But whosoever would now go about to renew the Jewish ceremonies again (saith he) Tanquam sopitos cineres eruens, non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae violator: He should as it were rake in dead men's ashes, and not be a seemly bringer of the body to the ground, but a wicked violator of Christian burial: Even so Augustine maketh it as wicked a part, to bring in use any Jewish rites, as to pull one, honestly buried, out of his grave.

The Papists.

THey hold that the proper vows of Christians are voluntary, not of such [error 85] things which Christians are bound in duty to do, but of such as they may leave undone, if they will, such as are their popish vows of continency and voluntary, or rather willful poverty.

1 Deuteron. 23.

Ans. First: We deny not but that the Jews had voluntary vows, and might bind themselves by vow to perform many things, which being not vowed, it was no sin to leave undone: As the Nazarites vows concerning abstinence from wine and strong drink: which things other might lawfully use without sin, if they were not professed Nazarites. But these ceremonial laws do nothing appertain to Christians.

Secondly, it may also be understood of necessary vows, which we are bound unto of duty, and then the sense is this: If you abstain from vowing ye sin not, that is, not so heinously as after the vow made; as Pagans and Infidels do sin in transgressing God's law: but a Christian sinneth more after public profession and promise made of obedience unto God's commandments.

The Protestants.

WE hold that to vow is not a thing simply forbidden Christians: but our vows are limited and restrained: for they are either such, as directly or immediately are referred to the worship of God, whereby we bind our selves more straightly to serve him: and such vows are only of such things as are commanded and necessarily to be done: and in this sense there is but one common vow of all Christians, and that is our solemn promise made in baptism, which the Papists deny properly to be a vow, Bellarmine, cap 19. There is another kind of vows, that directly concerneth not the worship of God, which may be of things not commanded, of the which we will entreat in the next section. Now we are to prove, that Baptism is the only proper vow of Christians, which directly toucheth the service and worship of God.

1 Circumcision was a general vow of the Jews, for thereby they bound themselves to keep the whole law, Galath. 5.3. Ergo, Baptism is the vow of Christians, which cometh in the place of circumcision. And again, it appeareth by this, that because Christians transgressing, do deserve greater punishment, then Jews or Gentiles, that they are more straightly obliged and bound by their covenant unto God then the other: and not only, as the Jesuit saith, because they have tasted more of the goodness of God, and so are more unthankful: for there are two parts of the covenant between God and us: The Lord saith, Thou art my people, and so enricheth them with knowledge, and every good thing: The people say, Thou art my God, Hosh. 2.23. And thus as the Lord doth covenant with them, so they do bind themselves unto God: The breach of which covenant, is that which stirreth up principally the anger of God against us.

2 Augustine upon the 75 Psalm writeth thus: Vouete & reddite domino de • vestro omnes communiter: Quid debemus vouere? credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, been viuere, secundum communem modum: Make your vows and pay them unto God generally altogether. What must we vow? to believe in him, to hope for eternal life, to live honestly, not to steal, not to commit adultery. These then are the common and general duties of Christians: no other then we promised and vowed in baptism.

The Papists.

[error 86] AL voluntary vows (say they) made by Christians, as not to eat flesh, not to drink strong drink, or to live unmarried; do concern the worship of God, and thereby men are made more acceptable unto him,