A General View of Papistry
1 Jacob vowed to pay tithes, Genes. 28. David to build a temple unto God, Psal. 131.2. But neither of these two were commanded them, and yet they were properly referred to the service of God.
Ans. First, we deny not, as we have said, but that in the law and before there might be such voluntary vows, yet it followeth not, that there should be any such now. Secondly, both those duties were necessary, and commanded in general, though not in particular. As first, Jacob's vow was that the Lord should be his God, verse. 21. No man can deny, but this was necessary, and a commandment: Then seeing the Lord is his God, it is also necessary that he should acknowledge him by some external worship, as by appointing the Lord an house in that place, and bringing oblations unto his altars: these are but particular duties, that do follow that general commandment.
Secondly, David did vow that, he was bound to do being King of Israel, namely, to have a care of the temple of God: for thus he saith to Nathan the Prophet, I dwell in an house of Cedar trees: but the Ark of God remaineth within the curtains, 2. Sam. 7.2. This belonged to the King of duty, as it was generally commanded all Israel, Hagg. 1.4. but that David was discharged of this care, by the especial warrant of God by the Prophet.
2 Hebr. 13.16. To do good and to destribute forget not, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Intelligitur (saith Bellarmine) de eleemosyna non praeceptae: it must be understood of alms which is not commanded.
Ans. As though all kind of alms and relieving of the poor be not commanded: for the works of charity, and to do good are always enjoined us. Again, this place serveth nothing at all for vows: It seemeth he was hard bestead, that had no better choice of places.
The Protestants.
WE grant that there are other kind of vows then before we spake of, which do not directly concern the worship of God, neither are of things commanded us, nor yet is God thereby the better pleased: but they serve only as helps, to make us more fit unto Christian duties: As a man that seeth he is by nature given to drunkenness, doth vow that he will take no strong drink, lest he should offend that way: Another purposeth to fast, thereby to tame his flesh, and the more fervently to pray: As Job made a covenant with his eyes not to look upon a maid, 31.1. But these things of themselves, by the outward act, are not the more acceptable unto God, neither is God by eating or not eating, or looking or not looking, the better worshipped, as these things are considered in themselves. Wherefore by the word of God we condemn all voluntary and superstitious vows of men, invented to serve God by, as vows of chastity, of going in pilgrimage, offering to Images, and such like.
1 S. Paul condemneth all voluntary worship of God which is invented by man, as unprofitable, though it have a show of wisdom in humbleness of mind, and not sparing the body, Coloss. 2.23. As such are the ordinances of the world in worshipping of Angels, and in abstinence, Touch not, taste not, handle not. But such are all popish vows, a voluntary service of God, even in the same things which the Apostle taketh exception against, for they make vows to Angels, to Saints, vows to keep days holy, and to fast in them: Ergo, they are unlawful.
2 Rom. 14.23. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, that is, grounded upon knowledge out of the word: Ergo, all voluntary vows made to serve God by are to be abandoned, because they have no warrant out of God's word. Bellarmine answereth, that the place is not so to be understood, but rather, by faith, is meant the conscience of man, and so whatsoever is done against the conscience is sin.
Ans. By faith, is not understood any conscience, but the assurance of a right conscience, which must needs be built upon the word: for verse. 22. S. Paul saith, If thou hast faith, have it with God: This cannot be spoken of a corrupt conscience which is not able to abide God's trial, but a right conscience established out of the word.
3 Let us hear Augustine's judgment: Sunt multi, qui vouent, alius pallium, alius oleum, alius ceream ad luminaria noctis, alius vt vinum non bibat per aliquot annos, alius vt ieiunia certo tēpore faciat, alius vt carnes non comedat. Non est istud votum optimum neque perfectum, adhuc melius volo: non eligit Deus nec speciem tuam, nec oleum tuum, nec ieiunium tuum, sed hoc, quod hodie redemit, ipsum offer, hoc est, animam tuam. There are many that vow, one a cloak, another oil, another a wax candle, another that he will drink no wine, another that he will fast, another that he will eat no flesh. This is not the best kind of vowing: God neither careth for thy comely apparel, nor for thy oil, nor for thy fasting: but offer that unto him, which he hath redeemed, that is, thy soul, De tempor. ser. 7. We see by this, what account Augustine maketh of superstitious voluntary vows, made with an intent to please God thereby.
THE FOURTH QUESTION CONCERNING Monastical vows in particular.
THere are three kinds of vows which belong unto Monkerie: the first is the vow of voluntary poverty: the second, the vow of obedience unto the Monastical presidents and governors: the third is the vow of continency: of these three in order.
THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE vow of voluntary poverty.
The Papists.
THey say it is an acceptable service unto GOD, for a man to give all he hath [error 87] to the poor, and by vow to consecrate and addict himself to voluntary poverty.
1 Math. 18.21. Christ faith, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor, and come and follow me. This is properly to follow Christ, to lack propriety and live in common: and thus the Apostles followed Christ, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, This is a precept not general to all, but given to this one man to discover his hypocrisy, and vain confidence that he had in himself, as though he had kept the law, which he came far short of. Secondly, the Apostles themselves had propriety: Peter had a house: John had to provide for the virgin Marie, whom Christ commended unto him: Matthew made a feast of his own goods, Fulk. ibid.
2 Act. 2.44. They had all things common: and Act. 5. Ananias and Sapphira, after their profession of commō life, deteining some part proper to themselves, were reproved and judged of the Apostles: Ergo, it is acceptable to God to live in common, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 20.
Answer: First, that community, used then amongst the brethren, ought always to be among Christians, no man to count that his own which the necessity of his brother requireth to be bestowed upon him: every man was not then bound to give up the propriety of their goods: for they distributed to every man as they had need, Act. 4.35. But if they had given up all the propriety of their goods, then all should have needed alike: And Peter saith not the contrary, but that Ananias might have kept the propriety of his goods, if he had not made public profession to the contrary, Act. 5.4.
2 Concerning Ananias, we do not read that he made any vow to give his goods to the Church: nay the contrary appeareth, in that Saint Peter saith, While it remained with thee, appertained it not to thee? But if his vow were past before, the goods, though not yet sold, could not appertain unto him. Agayne, the principal and chief cause, why Peter proceeded against him, was his lying and hypocrisy, not for breaking his vow: for it cannot be proved that he promised all, but that he affirmed that he brought all, whereas he withdrew part.
The Protestants.
VOluntarie, or rather willful poverty, for a man, having no urgent cause, to leave all he hath, and bequeath himself to a poor and needy life, only for opinion of greater merit, and hope thereby better to please God, is neither a thing acceptable nor commendable before God, nor anywhere commanded in the scriptures.
1 1. Timoth. 6.17. Saint Paul giving Counsel to rich men, biddeth them not to cast away their riches: but Charge them, saith he, that they be not high minded, nor put their trust in uncertain riches: Surely it had been a more compēdious way to wish them at once to leave their riches, so they should not be in danger, either of pride, or vain confidence: But the Apostle saith no such thing. Again, God giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy: riches are the gift of God, we ought not to be weary of God's blessing. And as Job saith, The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh: therefore a man ought not to make himself poor, because he made not himself rich, but to wait upon God.
Further it followeth, verse. 18. that they do good, and be rich in good works: he that can use riches well, may be rich in good works; but he that is poor wanteth occasion and means to do good, as the rich man endued with grace may: Wherefore he is an enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate, wherein he may more glorify God, for a poor.
Agayne, if it were so acceptable a thing to God, and so meritorious to live in poverty, what made the Prophet to pray against it? Give me not poverty nor riches, but feed me with food convenient, Prover. 30. verse. 8.
2 What better argument can we have against them, then their own practice? for, though in words they much commend voluntary poverty, yet it is a rare thing, to find it amongst them: for not one among a thousand of them, if they have lands, do give them to the poor, but to their own kinsfolks, or else to the Abbeys, where they know they shall be wealthily maintained. The Pope also is good to many, and granteth them capacities to possess temporal goods contrary to their former vow. Fulk. annot. Mark. 10. sect. 3.
3 Augustine saith, Diuitiae seculares si desint, non per opera mala quarantur in mundo: Si autem adsunt, per opera bona seruentur in coelo: Epist. 1. posteriorum. If secular riches be wanting, let not a man seek to get them by evil doing in the world: but if he have them, labor, by well doing, to store them up in heaven. He counselleth not men to cast away their riches: It was the heresy of the Pelagians to persuade rich men to cast away their goods, August. epistol. 106. and of the Manichees likewise, August. cont. Faustum. lib. 5. cap. 10.
THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the vow of obedience.
The Papists.
[error 88] THey that do enter into the monkish profession, do vow in all things to become obedient to their governor, & to follow his rules & injunctions: As the Franciscans follow Saint Francis rule, who instead of a girdle, put a cord about him, went bare-foot, in winter season covered his flesh with ice and snow. It is acceptable, and grateful service, say they, unto God, to be thus obedient to their fathers and governors.
1 Ierem. 35. The sons of Jonadab are commended, for being obedient to their father, who enjoined them to drink no wine, nor to sow their fields, nor build houses but dwell in tents: See, they obeyed their father in things not commanded of God: Ergo, so ought religious Monks to do. Bellarm. cap. 21.
Answer. First you cannot show, that your monkish Abbots have such authority over their Monks, as the father hath over his children: for Coloss. 3. and in many other places, children are commanded to be obedient to their parents: But they have neither authority nor calling out of the word. Secondly, Jonadab enjoined nothing contrary to the law of the Nazarites, Numb. 6. and if you say, that it was not the custom of the Nazarites to dwell in tents: you shall find that the Rechabites did not so straightly observe this, as the other, namely not to drink wine: for Ierem. 35.11. they came up for fear of the Chaldeans that were in the land, and dwelt at Jerusalem: they dispensed with the voluntary injunction of their father, for dwelling in their tents, but kept the other vow of abstaining from wine still, because it was after the law. Wherefore this example maketh not for monkish obedience, seeing they are enjoined things not commanded by God, nay contrary to his commandments.
The Protestants.
NO obedience to any ruler either spiritual or temporal is to be yielded unto, but for the Lord's sake, and in such matters, wherein we have the warrant of God's word for our obedience.
1 Coloss. 3.23. Servants be obedient to your masters, and whatsoever you do, do it heartily as to the Lord: But if anything be enjoined us which is not warranted by the word of God, we cannot with a good conscience obey as before the Lord. Agayne, Saint Paul saith, Coloss. 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over you, or beguile you, or as the Rhemists translate, seduce you willfully: Ergo, no man must impose rules of life beside the Gospel, for this were to rule over men at their pleasure.
2 Augustine saith, Cum homo conster anima & corpore, oportet nos ex ea parte, quae ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse potestatibu • : ex illa parte, qua credimus deo, & ad eius regnum vocamur, non oportet nos cuiqua • esse subditos: Seeing a man doth consist both of body and soul; in regard of that parte, which the affairs of this life concern, we ought to be subject to the higher powers: but in respect of that part whereby we believe, and are called to the kingdom of God, we must be obedient to none, August. in 13. ad Rom. Therefore no man may impose any new religion upon us, which altogether toucheth the conscience.
THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE vow of continency or chastity.
The Papists.
THe vow of chaste and continent life is commendable and meritorious, they say, in all that do take it upon them, and after the vow made, they are sure [error 89] to receive that high gift of continency, if they duly labor for it, Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 7. But whosoever marrieth after the vow made, sinneth damnably, and turneth back after Satan. Rhemist. annot. 1. Tim. 5. sect. 12.
1 Math. 19.12. Some have made themselves chaste, or as the Rhemists do very homely translate it, have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: this proveth the vows of chastity to be both lawful and meritorious, Rhemist. in hunc locum.
Ans. This is meant only of those that have the gift of continency, who, if they be sure they have received it, may vow and purpose single life: but without such assurance no man can vow continency lawfully. Secondly, but as for meriting, it cometh neither by being married or unmarried, but is the free gift of God through Christ. Fulk. ibid.
2 1. Timoth. 5.12. Having damnation because they have cast away their first faith: that is, the vow of continency, which they made to Christ: it cannot be meant of the first faith in baptism, for that is not lost by marriage, Rhemist. And again, verse. 15. They are turned back after Satan: we may here learn, for those to marry which are professed, is to turn back after Satan. Rhemist. in eum locum.
Answer: First, Saint Paul speaketh not here of widows already chosen, but to be chosen: he would have younger widows to be chosen, because they would wax wanton, and marry: and therefore it is not like, that by the first faith here is meant the vow of chastity, seeing there is no cause that these younger widows should make any vow, being excluded by the Apostle from Church services. Secondly, verse. 14. Saint Paul himself Counselleth the younger widows to marry, therefore it is not like they were votaries. Thirdly, by the first faith is understood the Christian faith, which the younger widows waxing wanton, and lascivious, nor carrying to match with Infidels, were in danger to break, as the Apostle telleth them of some that had done so already, and were turned back after Satan. Fourthly, we say not that the faith of baptism is broken by all marriage, but with joining with Infidels. Fifthly, it appeareth what breach of faith Paul meaneth, when he saith, They wax wanton, and idle, and are busy-bodies, go from house to house, and speak things uncomely, verse 13. Which is a sliding back from the Christian faith, when our life iarreth with our profession: not a breach of any vow of continency, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 10.12.
The Protestants.
Our sentence then appeareth to be this: that the vow of continency cannot lawfully be made of all, neither is indifferently to be required of them, seeing all are not endued with that gift, Fulk. Math. 19.6. And that it is better even for vowed persons, having rashly presumed beyond their strength, to marry, rather then to burn. Fulk. 1. Cor. 7. sect. 8.
1 The scripture everywhere commandeth such to use the benefit of marriage, that have not the gift to live single, 1. Cor. 7.2. For avoiding of fornication let every man have his wife: and ver. 9. If they cannot abstain let them marry. Wherefore they transgress the commandment of God, and presume rashly, that having not this gift, do vow virginity.
Bellarmine. Answer. First, Saint Paul wisheth men to marry, not for every temptation of lust, but when they are ready to fall into external works of uncleanness, as into fornication: and therefore he saith, For avoiding of fornication let everyone have his wife: For Saint Paul felt the prick of the flesh, that is, the lust of concupiscence, and was buffeted of it, yet married not for all that cap. 30. Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8.
Answer: First, we say not that for every light temptation, which by resisting may be overcome, in those that have the gift of continency, a man is to desire marriage, but when he is continually enflamed with lust, so that the will doth consent: though he be not yet so overcome, that he fall in outward uncleanness: and this is the Apostles meaning, when he saith, It is better to marry then to burn, that is, with inward lust when his mind is disquieted: And such a man as doth burn with secret concupiscence, still wrestling with that fire, and not being able to quench it, if he refuse to use the lawful remedy of marriage, is in danger also to fall into outward fornication.
2 Concerning Paul's example: First, the place is not so to be understood of the lust of concupiscence: for it is not like, that the Apostle being kept under, with hunger, cold, imprisonment, should be so greatly tempted that way. But either it may be understood of the particular temptation to pride and vainglorie, as he him self expoundeth it, verse. 7. lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations: Or else generally Saint Paul understandeth by flesh, the whole mass of corruption and whatsoever was in him that resisted the spirit: In this sense he crieth out, Roman. 7. Who shall deliver me from this body of death! Calvin.
2 Though we yield that Saint Paul was tempted of his concupiscence, yet he overcame and subdued it, obtaining from God, after some striving, grace and power to quench the secret fire: And so we deny not, but that men ought by fasting and prayer to labor for that precious gift. But if they feel the fire to burn within them still, then are they to use the remedy prescribed by Saint Paul, that is, to marry.
Secondly, saith Bellarmine, Saint Paul giveth liberty of marriage only to those which were free and had not vowed continency, cap. 31.
Answer: First, the Apostles words are general: Let every man have his wife: I, say the Rhemists, he speaketh of those that were married before their conversion, that they might still use and keep their wives. Yea but Saint Paul speaketh of all unmarried, in the verse next before, It is good not to touch a woman: I trow he meaneth not, it is good for a man that is married not to touch his wife. Secondly, it is a general liberty, which he granteth to all, ver. 9. If they cannot contain, let them marry: but many votaries cannot contain, as it may appear by the unchaste lives of your Monkish rabble: therefore having the disease, they may use the remedy, that is, marry.
Argum. 2. Virginitie, and continent life is only to be required of those which have the gift of continency: But all have not that gift: Ergo, the vow of Virginitie is not indifferently to be made by any. That the gift of continency cannot be had or obtained of all, neither resteth in our free will, it is plain by scripture.
1 Math. 19.12. He that is able to receive this gift, let him receive it: Ergo, all are notable to receive it.
Bellarmine. First, though they are not able to receive it yet, yet they may if they will, and ask for it by prayer: for the text is, Some have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of God: whereby it appeareth that it is in the will of man, cap. 31. Answer. He speaketh clean contrary to the text: for Christ saith, None receive it but to whom it is given, and the words are, qui capere potest, not, qui velit, he that can receive, not he that will receive. And they are said to make themselves chaste, not because it is in their own choice, but being enabled of God, and having received power over their will, they are said to make themselves chaste, having received power by the spirit of God: So our Savior saith, Come unto me all ye that are laden, Math. 11. & yet no man cometh to Christ, but his father first draweth him, John 6.44. Wherefore it being a peculiar gift of God, all cannot have it, neither are sure to obtain it, though they ask it by prayer, because we have no promise to be heard.
Rhemist. When a man is bound to abstain by vow, or other necessary occasion, as imprisonment, banishment, sickness, no doubt, if he labor for the gift of continency, he may have it. Ans. They that bind themselves to a rash vow, have no promise to be heard praying for continency. Secondly, they that are driven unto any such necessity as you speak of, which they are not a cause of themselves, neither can avoid, as in long and perpetual sickness, it is certain that God will give the gift being sought by lawful means: But as for banishment and imprisonment, they are not of such necessity, but that the husband is bound to follow the wife, and the wife her husband, Fulk. 1. Cor. 7.6.
Neither are many of those means commendable, which were used in Monkerie: for some of them were superstitious and unlawful, as they used Phisick and medicine to correct or slake, and extinguish nature in them: Francis was wont to cover his body with ice and snow, others did whip themselves: This was not to subdue and tame the body, but to destroy and kill the body, and make it unfit for other duties. The scripture prescribeth no other means but prayer and fasting, and labor in our vocation. Some of them again used external exercise of their body, as by fasting, by lying hard, by watching, which in themselves were not amiss: but they leave the chief and principal, which is the spiritual means: for the outward ex • rcise of the flesh without this, is little worth, Coloss. 2.23.
Bellarmine. To believe is no less the gift of God, then to live chaste, yet we exhort all men to believe, and they do vow and promise it in baptism: why may they not as well vow continency, although it be a peculiar gift? cap. 31.
Ans. They are both indeed the gifts of God, but one is necessary to salvation, namely, to believe, and is promised to all that will seek for it: But the other gift is not necessary, neither hath any such promise.
Secondly, Saint Paul calleth this a proper gift: But if all men were capable of it, how could it be called a proper gift? One after this manner, another after that, saith the Apostle. But if every man might attain to that one gift of continency, they should not all have their proper gift, but all one gift, and after the same manner. And though Saint Paul should mean, that to live chastely in wedlock be also a proper gift of God, as Bellarmine urgeth, and we deny not: yet it remaineth still, that the other is a more singular and proper gift, and is not therefore commonly, and indifferently bestowed upon all.
Thirdly, Saint Paul saith, that a man may marry his Virgin if need so require, 1. Corinth. 7.37. But if everyone, laboring for the gift of continency, might obtain it, there should then be no necessity of marriage: which the Apostle here affirmeth.
Lastly, the Rhemists say, that the marriage of those that have vowed, is the worst sort of incontinency and fornication, 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8.
Augustine saith clean contrary: Non ipsae nuptiae talium damnandae iudicantur, sed damnatur propositi fraus, damnatur fracta votifides: postremo damnantur tales, non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiaa primam fidē irritam fecerunt: de bono viduitat. cap. 9. The marriages of such are not condemned, but the violating of their vow is condemned, not because they afterward entered into the league of marriage, but because they did break the first faith of continency: Augustine saith not, that such marriages are no marriages, but plain adultery & fornication: But maketh the marriage lawful, & reproveth their rashness before in making, and their unsteadfastness now in breaking their vows.
THE FIFTH QUESTION CONCERNING Monastical persons, which do enter into that profession.
THere are four sortes of people which the papists do offer great wrong unto, in drawing them to the profession of monkery: First, unto the younger sort, which have liberty to marry. Secondly, to the children and sons, whom they make Monks without consent of their parents. Thirdly, they say, married persons, by mutual consent, may betake themselves to a Monks habit. Fourthly, if marriage be contracted, not consummate or finished, they may one leave another without consent first had.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE younger sort are to be admitted to profess Monkerie.
The Papists.
IF they be come to the years of discretion, they may, men or women at any [error 90] age, take upon them the vow of Monkerie, Bellarm. cap. 35.
1 Math. 19.14. Suffer little children to come unto me: Ergo, young men and mayds may become Monks. Bellarm.
Answ. First, the text speaketh of little children: but by your confession, they must be of years of discretion that should enter into your profession: so are not little children. 2. As though none could come to Christ, but through a Monks cowle: Nay, I would, they of all men, did not go furthest off from Christ. It followeth also in the text, Of such is the kingdom of heaven: so by this reason, heaven gates should be open only to Monks and Friers: and this is the right heresy of the Pelagians, and Manichees, that promised the kingdom of God not one, but those that cast a way their riches.
2 John the Baptist lived from a child in the wilderness: Ergo, lawful for young ones to profess Monkerie.
Answer: First, John's example is extraordinary, as his office and calling was singular, & therefore is no more to be imitated and followed in his solitary life, then in his diet of Locusts and wild honey: He sprang also in his mothers womb: so, I think, all Monks and Eremites do not. Secondly, it is not certain at what years John entered into the Wilderness: for he was thirty year old when he came and preached in the Wilderness, as Matthew writeth, 3.1.
The Protestants.
THough we should grant, that a Monastical life were in some persons, and at sometimes tolerable among Christians, yet of all other the younger sort, in whom lust doth reign, were most unfit, and not to be admitted unto that kind of life.
1 Saint Paul would have no widow to be chosen under 60. years, 1. Timoth. 5.9. and I will the younger to marry, verse. 16. Ergo, it is contrary to Saint Paul's rule, to suffer any such to make vows of continency.
Rhemist. answer. First, it was but a rule for that time, when as yet there were no Monasteries nor discipline, but young widows, wandered up & down idly. Answ. First, the same cause that young women had to marry then, they have now, and therefore the rule is general. Secondly, as though the walls of Monasteries were able to keep in Virginitie: no, it is notoriously known, that unchaste life hath scaled the walls of Nunneries, crept in at windows, and found muses in the ground.
2 Saint Paul, say they, counselleth young widows to marry, not young Virgins, which having not experience of lust, are not so greatly tempted. Ans. How chaste your cloister women have been, and free from these temptations, the stories of former times make mention: and the examples of so many unchaste milch-Nuns, and filthy Monks and Friers, are a sufficient proof, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 11. But all these shifts notwithstanding Saint Paul's rule must stand, that no widows must be admitted under 60. year old.
2 The Manichees took occasion hereby to insult against the Catholics, because they admitted so many Virgins to the profession of single life: Certatim ad hanc professionem • asincitatis suasionibu • vestris, vt iam pene major in Ecclesijs omnibus virginum apud vos, quam mulierum numerositas habeatur, August. cor. Faustum. 30.4. Ye labor (say the Manichees) to draw women of every hand to this profession by your persuasions, that now in your Churches, the number of professed virgins exceedeth the number of women. And hereby the Manichees that extolled virginity, and condemned marriage, were induced to think that the Catholic Bishops also were of their opinion.
Likewise Augustine, epistol. 169. maketh mention of one Priuius, that because while he lived among the Catholics, he could not enjoy the speech and company of two young Nuns, he ran away with them to the Donatists. Thus we see what good cometh to shut young men and women into cloisters.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER CHILdren may enter into profession of Monkerie without their Parents consent.
The Papists.
IF they be of sufficient age, as the men of 14. year at the least, the women [error 91] of 12. and their Parents be not driven to any such necessity, that they need their children's help, they may without Parents consent enter into Monkery.
1 God said to Abraham, get thee out of thy country and from thy fathers house: Genes. 12. and Christ Math. 10. whosoever loveth father or mother more then me, is not worthy of me. Ergo, children may become Monks, without their fathers leave, Bellarm. cap. 36.
Answ. First, who would have thought that Abraham was a Monk, but that the Jesuit saith it? Secondly, by the same reason a man may not leave his parents only, but go out of his country. Thirdly, Abraham was 75. yere old at that time, when he went out of Haran, verse 4. Ergo, we will conclude that none ought to be made Monks before those years. Fourthly, When God calleth any man to a Monkish life, as Abraham had an especial calling of God, we will give him good leave to go.
Concerning the other saying of our Savior, it maketh nothing for you. First, Christ speaketh of persecution, when a man ought not for love of his friends to deny Christ: but, I trow you will not grant, that your Monkish life is persecution: and yet it is after a sort▪ for the Locusts, which are none other but Monks and Friers, Apocal. 9. do bite and sting like serpents, that is, do secretly wound men's consciences. Secondly, a man may leave his parents, as Christ commandeth, though he dwell in the same house with them: that is, by setting his love and affection on heavenly things. Thirdly, do all go to Christ that come into your Monasteries? nay, I would they went not from Christ: for they live after another rule, then Christ's: Francis your great founder erected a new sect of Monkerie, and found out a new rule for them, which he called regulam Euangelicam, the rule of the Gospel: as though Christ's rule were not sufficient▪
The Protestants.
CHildren ought not by the law of God to make any vow of single and continent life without the consent and liking of their parents. Luther. Pet. Martyr, Lib. de caelibat. et votis.
1. By the law of Moses the father had power to disallow the vows which the daughter made being in his house, Numb. 30.6. Which law was not ceremonious: for it was grounded upon the Moral law, which commanded all obedience and duty of the children to the Parents: And that it is not abrogate, it appeareth, because the same law is renewed by S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 36.37. Where the Apostle referreth the whole matter of keeping a virgin, or placing of her in marriage to the will of the father, yet so, that he must have regard unto the necessity, the estate and condition of his virgins. Both these places do apertly prove, that neither the child can be bestowed in marriage, nor vowed to virginity, without the consent and determination of the parents.
2. Let us hear what authority Augustine yieldeth to the father over his children: Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris: Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit: vnusquisque ergo in domosua, si caput est domui suae, debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū. de Sanct. Ser. 51. You (saith Augustine their Bishop) must supplye our stead in your houses: a Bishop or Superintendent, is so called because he ouerseeth: therefore every householder, being the head of his house, ought to play the Bishop in his house. The father then is a Bishop over his children: shall any man then dare to take any out of his house, that is his Bishoprike, or any sheep out of his fold, without the Bishop and shepherds consent?
THE THIRD PART, WHETHER Married persons may with mutual consent become votaries.
The Papists.
WIth mutual consent the man & the wife may separate thē selves and vow [error 92] and promise single life forever, so long as they both shall live. Bellarm. Cap. 37.
Marie and Joseph were perfitely man and wife, yet by mutual consent they lived continently all their days: Ergo, it is lawful for married couples to separate themselves forever, both agreeing thereunto. Bellarm. cap. 37.
Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text, that there was no such thing purposed by Joseph, before he was admonished by the Angel in a dream, but that, as she was already betrothed: so there was an intent on Joseph's parte, that they should come together. Math. 1.18. But that in the mean time Marie was found with child by the holy ghost: and so from that time Joseph being a just man never knew his wife: there was no such purpose or vow before.
2. That this was an extraordinary example, who seeth it not? When any man shall be admonished by an Angel as Joseph was, and shall have the like cause as Joseph had to abstain, which shall never be, he may be bold to do as Joseph did.
The Protestants.
THey that are once joined together in marriage, and have made a covenant each to other before God, cannot separate them selves though they both consent, there being no other cause, but a purpose of single life for more holiness sake.
1. It is flat contrary to
S. Paul's
rule.
1.
Corinth.
7.5.
2. That which God hath coupled, no man ought to put asunder: but they that are married have made a covenant to God. Pro. 2.17. as well as to themselves, and are joined by God's law together: Ergo, they cannot dissolve their marriage by their own power and will, the Lord having an interest therein.
Augustine Thus writeth, Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi, nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere, vt faecunda ducatur, de nupt. & concupiscen. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawful for married couples, one to be separate frō another, unless it be for fornication: nor to leave a barren wife to marry a fruitful. Therefore if fornication only be a just cause of final separation, there can be no other: If there were any other, it is most like it should be for procreation of children: But neither for that cause is a man to leave his wife, Ergo for no other. Therefore, not for any vow of continency is marriage to be dissolved, or any separation to be admitted. Bellarm. saith, that by their separation, Marriage is not dissolved. Auns. It is as much dissolved, as by your law in cases of diuorse. 1. For these are your words: for aduoutrie one may dismiss another, but neither party can marry again, for any cause during life. Rhemist. Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allow only a kind of dismission in the case of adultery, and so you do in the vowing of continency: And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other, to break off the Matrimonial duty, which is contrary to the gospel.
THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate, may without consent be broken for the vow of continency.
The Papists.
[error 93] THeir opinion is, that if the marriage be contracted only and ratified, but not yet consummate, by the parties coming together, it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vow chastity, cap. 38. Bellarm.
His reason is, because it is lawful for a man to pass from a less perfect state of life to a more perfect, if it may be done without detriment, as this may be: for yet they have no children, and the party may as well be married to another. Bellarm.
Answ. First, a single life is not always the perfecter state, nor to all, as it is not to them that have not the gift to contain, as it is most like he hath not, that is contracted, and hath made promise of marriage: for then all this needed not. Secondly, though there be none of those impediments named, yet there is a greater: namely, their faith & promise made each to other before God, which they ought not to violate. Thirdly, Saint Paul saith, If thou be bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed, 1. Corinth. 7.27. But they that are espoused one to the other, are bound, unless you will say, that the covenant made by them unto God Prover. 2.17. bindeth not.
The Protestants.
MAtrimonie whether ratified only by lawful contract or espousals, or consummate, ought not any way to be broken with consent or without, for Monastical profession.
1 Our reason is, because it is perfect marriage already in substance and before God, which is ratified by contract only and solemn vow and covenant made each to other: And being thus betrothed, the one giveth power of their body to the other, and now they are no more free. That this marriage is perfect before God, and in substance, it appeareth by the law of Moses, by the which a man defiling a maid betrothed, was to suffer death, as well, as if he had committed uncleanness with a woman already married. Deuteron. 22. verse 22.23. And Math. 1.18. Marie that was but betrothed to Joseph, is by the Angel called his wife, verse. 20.
2 August. saith, Coninges fidem sibi pariter debent: Cui fidei tantum iuristribuit Apostolus, vt eam potestatem appellaret dicens, Mulier non habet potestatē sui corporis sed vir, &c. Maried couples do owe faith & troth one to the other: which mutual troth the Apos. maketh such account of, that he giveth it y e name of power: saying, The woman hath not power of her own body, but the man, and likewise the man, &c. Augustine saith, that by the very plighting of their troth each to other, they receive mutual power and interest one of another's body. But this troth was plighted before the consummation of their marriage, Ergo, they had one interest in another then, and can do nothing one without the consent of the other: de bon. coniugal. cap. 3.
THE SIXT QUESTION CONCERNING the rules and discipline of Monastical life.
THis question hath four partes. First, of the solitary and severe kind of life in Monks and Eremites. Secondly, of their canonical hours appointed for prayer. Thirdly, of their habit and apparel. Fourthly, of their maintenance, whether it ought to come by their labor.
THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE solitary and austere life of Monks.
The Papists.
TO live in solitary places, to wear sack-cloth, to be given continually to [error 94] fasting, to lie hard, to fare meanly, and by other such ways to punish and afflict the body, they say, are notable means to bring the soul to the contemplation of heavenly things.
1 John the Baptist lived in the desert, fared coarsely, and was barely appareled, he ate Locusts and wild honey, and ware a garment of Camels hair: he was a right pattern of true Eremites, Bellarm. cap. 39. lib. 2. de Monach.
Answer. First, Johns life was not so austere, as they make it: for the place where he lived was not so solitary, but that there were villages and houses not far off, as it may appear by the people's resort unto him: his apparel was of Camels hair, and was somewhat course, yet no such thing as sack-cloth, or hair-cloth, for of the finest of the Camels hair Chamblets and Grograines are made that are had in price amongst us: his diet also in eating Locusts & wild honey was usual in that country. Secondly, we deny not but John lived an austere life, because he was a preacher of repentance, & had a singular office to prepare men for the coming of Christ: Therefore his calling being extraordinary, he cannot be an author of an ordinary calling among Christians. Thirdly, seeing Christ came eating and drinking, lived amongst men, and was appareled as others were, why should Christians rather choose to imitate the Baptist, who had no office or ministry in the Gospel, Math. 11.11. then our Savior Christ, whose life and doctrine is for our imitation?
The Protestants.
THat the solitary life of Eremites, in flying the comfortable society of men, and their rigorous manner in the unnatural chastising of their bodies, is contrary to the rule of the Gospel, thus we show it.
1 Heb. 10.24.25. Let us consider one another, and provoke one another to good works, not forsaking the assemblies of our selves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: here the Apostle speaketh manifestly against those that shun the society and company of their brethren, because they must needs fail in the duties of charity, as in exhorting one another, and provoking to good works: these duties Eremites cannot perform, therefore their life is unlawful: and Math. 24, it is a note of false prophets and false Christ's to live in the deserts. Again, they that love solitary places, do offer themselves to temptation, and fall into the snares of the devil: God saw it was not good for Adam, no not in Paradise, to live alone: but I think their deserts are far unlike to Paradise: Christ to be tempted of the devil was lead into the Wildernes: Therefore such places are fit for Satan's working. The preacher saith, Two are better then one, for if one overcome him, two shall stand against him, Eccles. 4.12. We are better able being aided by our brethren to resist Satan then being alone: We ought not then to tempt God, and not knowing our own strength, to go forth into solitary places, and as it were provoke Satan to the Combat.
2 That cruel and inhumane kind of chastising their bodies by fasting & other discipline utterly is unlawful. The Monks called Grandimōtenses, did wear shirts of maile next their bodies, the Charter Monks, hair-cloth: the Monks Flagellants went bare-foot in linen shirts, leaving an open place in the back where they did daily whip themselves before the people, till the blood followed. Moses a certain Abbot did so afflict his body with fasting and watching, that for 2. or 3. days together many times he had no appetite at all to his meat, neither could sleep. An other Eremite (as Cassianus writeth) did purpose with himself not to eat meat, unless he had some guest or stranger with him, and so was constrained to abstain sometime five days together: two other Monastical brethren, trauayling in the desert of Thebaide, did vow not to take any sustenance, but such as God should send them: and as they went, a certain wild people, contrary to their custom, offered them meat, the one took it as sent of God, the other refused it, because he thought it to be sent rather of man then of God, and so died.
Basilius magnus, and Gregor. Nazianzen, did so pluck down themselves by immoderate fasting, that when they were called to be Bishops they were not able to sustain the labor thereof.
Where in all the scriptures learned these men, thus to punish their bodies? this is not with Saint Paul to subdue and bring under the flesh: but to kill and destroy it: contrary to that saying of Saint Paul ▪ No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but loveth & cherisheth it: see I pray you, how these men loved and cherished their bodies?
Let us hear what Aug. saith, Tudeseris res humanas, & segregas te, vt nemo te videat: Cui proderis? tu ad hoc peruenisses, si nemo tibi profuisset? An quia veloces pedes tibi videris habuisse ad transeundum, praecisurus es pontem? Thou leavest the care of human things, and separatest thyself that no man should see thee: to whom doest thou good in so do doing? Hadst thou come to this perfection thyself if no man had done thee good? because thou hast quickly passed over, wilt thou cut off the bridge, that no man else should pass? See then Augustine maketh the heremiticall life altogether unprofitable to men.
THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the habit and shaving of Monks.
The Papists.
BOth these superstitious customs, for Monks to be known by their cowls & [error 95] shaven crowns, they receive and allow as commendable and fit for them to be known by. Beside some show of antiquity, scripture they have none: but their best reason is this: that as Senators & soldiers, Noble mē & rustikes are know̄ by their apparel, so it is meet that Monks should be discerned from others by their habit, Bellarm. cap. 40. Our Rhem. use the same reason for shaven crowns, that it is a note of distinction between the Clergy and lay-men, annot. 1. Pet. 5. sect. 2. And for priestlike garnents, they allege out of Apocal. 1. verse. 13. how Christ appeared to John vested in a priestlike garment.
Ans. 1. We deny not, but that it is convenient for Ministers to be discerned from others even in their apparel: which may be done by the gravity & modesty thereof in color, in plainness, not necessary to bring in strange and ridiculous fashions of attire, such as Monks cowls are: yet Ministers are better discerned by other things, then their apparel, as they are described by S. Paul, 1. Tim. 3. But as for any such distinction of monks we allow not: for the very calling it self ought to be abolished. As for shaven crowns and beards, they are but tokens of Baals priests, make the best of them you can.
2 Christ appeared in a long garment down to the feet: which they translate a priestlike garment, as though Christ were then going to Mass: The word is, poderes, which signifieth a long vesture, down to the feet, which was one of the high priests garments, and hereby is signified the priesthood of Christ: but what is this to the attire of Monks or priests? We deny not but long garments for their comeliness are fit for Ministers, according to the fashiō of the country, but not as necessary, representing more holiness: for in the East countries, short garments were grave and comely enough: as the prophets had their mantles: and S. Paul maketh mention of his cloke. 2. Tim. 4.13.
The Protestants.
WE condemn both the habit and shaving of the Monks as superstitious, even as their whole life and profession is.
1 There is no one precept in the new testament concerning forms and fashions of apparel to be used by Clergy men, but only in general terms, that they should be modest and sober, and grave in their behavior, 1. Tim. 3. The Levites and priests indeed in the law, had rules and precepts set them both for their vestures in the temple, and their ordinary apparel, Numb. 15.39. that it should be made with fringes in remembrance of the commandments. But who seeth not that such significations of apparel were Levitical, and merely ceremonious? such is the habit of Monks: for their cowls, saith the Jesuit, signify their innocence, like unto children that are covered with veils like unto cowls. But to place any religion or holiness in apparel, as they did, (for it was thought a great privilege to be buried in a Monks cowl) is abominable superstition: for such Monkish superstition our Savior rebuked the Pharisees, Math. 23.5. All their works they do, to be seen of men: for they make their Phylacteries broad, and make long the fringes of their garments. If the Pharisees did abuse to vain-glory and superstition, that kind of apparel which the law commanded: there can be no good use of Monkish habits, which the Gospel neither commendeth nor commandeth.
As for shaven crowns: they were directly forbid̄ by the law of Moses, not only to round the tufts of their beard, as the Gentiles did, Leu. 19.27. but not to shave their beard, or make bald their head, Levite. 21.5. And then it was a sign of holiness not to cut the hair, as in the Nazarites it appeareth, Num. 6. It was then the custom of the heathen and of their Idolatrous priests to shave themselves: How then dare the papists make that a sign of holiness now, which was a sign of profaneness, and heathennes then? And is their religion so beggarly, that they must needs borrow their ceremonies of the heathen?
2 The great variety of their habits, & foolish significations of their shauings, do show what beginning they had. The Monks of Basiles order went in white, of Benets rule in black, the Cistercians had white rotchets upon a black coat: the Grandimōtenses a coat of mailes, with a black cloke upon. Some starred Monks: some Jesuits, with a white girdle, & a russet cowl: some Celestines all in blew, both cloke, cowl and cap. The Franciscans did wear ropes for girdles & treen shoes.
They render also diverse reasons of their shaven crowns: some say, it resembleth Christ's crown of thorns: some by shaving the hair, do signify the mortifiyng of the affections, as cutting of things that are superfluous: some by baring of the head, the simplicity and plainness of life. Bellarm. saith, it is a sign of repentance and conversion. Is not here good stuff, think you? Such rites, such ceremonies, such significations, such human traditions, I think the Pharisees would have abhorred. For these are worse then their washing of tables, brazen vessels, pots, cups, and such like: And yet our Savior saith of them, that they did lay the commandment of God apart, to establish their own traditions, Mark. 7.8.
Lastly, let August. speak: Cōcerning the habit of ecclesiastical persons, thus he writeth: Aeque laicis patet coeli palatium dei mandata seruantibus quàm sanctimoniali▪ habitu praeditis sacerdotibus. De salutar. docum. cap. 8. The heavenly palace is as well open for Lay men, keeping the commandments of God, as for Priests in their holy attire. What profiteth it then, I pray you, to be buried in a Monks cowl? Again, Augustine found fault with certain dissolute Monks in that time, that suffered their hair to grow long: Against whom he urgeth the saying of S. Paul, 1. Corinth. 11.14. Doth not nature it self teach you, that it is a shame for a man to have long hair? And so he concludeth: Hoc quo pertinet, quaeso, tam aperte contra Apostoli praecepta comari? What meaning have you in this, to suffer your hair to grow, contrary to the precept of the Apostle? But this precept did no more belong to Monks, then all other Christians. Concerning the shaving of Monks, Augustine hath not one word at all, but of polling, and clipping the hair: he speaketh only against certain crinitos fratres, that nourished their hair and suffered it to grow of length.
Nay, our Rhemists love shaving so well, that they defend the shaving of Nuns, and would prove it out of Jerome, who indeed speaketh of the cutting of their hair, not for any religion, but to avoid certain little beasts that bred between the skin and the hair, (you know what beasts they are) because they used not the bathes, nor oil, as other women did, Fulk. 2. Thessal. 3. sect. 2. But whatsoever Jerome saith, it is flat contrary to Saint Paul's rule, who saith, It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, 1. Cor. 14.6.
THE THIRD PART OF THE MONKES Canonical hours.
The Papists.
THe 3.6.9. hours, they say, are consecrated and devoted to prayer, which they call their Canonical hours: at the 3. hour the holy Ghost descended: at [error 96] the 6. hour Peter went up to the top of the house: and at the 9. hour Peter and John went up to pray in the temple, Act. 3.1. And Daniel used to pray thrice in the day, Dan. 6.10. Ergo, those times ought to be consecrate to prayer, Rhemist. Act. 10. sect. 6.
Ans. First, we deny that it can be gathered by any of those places, that these hours only ought to be set apart for prayer. Peter and John went up at the 9. hour, which was the time of the evening sacrifice, when the religious Jews went up to pray. Secondly, Daniel prayed three times a day, but at what hours the text speaketh not: yet by this example, and by the other proofs alleged, we do gather, that at the 3.6.9. hour, that is not precisely at any of these times, but in the morning, when men rise up to their labors, at noon before their repast, and at night when they go to rest, it is meet and convenient that men should make their prayers unto God, and at other times also when they find themselves fit. Thirdly, the popish service hath nothing but the names of these hours: for they are all finished in the forenoon, they have their Nocturnes at midnight, their Prime early in the morning, whereas the sixth hour is at high noon, the ninth hour is the third hour before the Suns set, Fulk. ibid.
The Protestants.
WE deny not but that set times of public prayer are commendable, as we have our forenoon, and afternoon service: But at unseasonable hours, as at midnight, or the rising of the Sun, to call the people together, when they cannot cōueniently be assembled, is but a superstitious custom. Again, it is profitable for men in the morning, noon, evening, though not precisely at any set hours, to direct their prayers unto God: but so to stint men's prayers, as that they ought of necessity to keep their hours, as though their prayers were then more available, it hath no ground out of scripture.
1 S. Paul saith, Pray continually, 1. Thessal. 5.17. Ergo, it is lawful to pray at all times, and one time as fit for prayer as another, if a man be prepared. Agayne, the same Apostle saith: I will that the men everywhere lift up pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1. Timoth. 2.8. Out of these words we gather two arguments: First, prayers are no more bound to times, then to places: a man may pray everywhere, Ergo, at every time. Secondly, a man ought not to pray but when he is void of wrath, and is otherwise prepared: but it may be that at the stinted hours, of the 3.6.9. a man may be in wrath, and otherwise not fit, therefore he is not necessarily to be tied to those hours.
2 Augustine thus writeth: Cum quisque orationem quaerit, collocat membra sicut ei occurrerit. Cum autem non quaeritur, sed infertur appetitus orandi: hoc est, cum repent aliquid venit in mentem, quocum{que} modo inuenerit hominem, non est vtique differenda oratio. Lib. 2. ad Simplician. quaest. 4. When any man desireth to pray, let him dispose his body as he thinketh best: But when as it cometh not of his desire and seeking, but suddenly his affection is stirred up to pray, howsoever prayer findeth him (that is, whether standing or sitting) he must not in any case defer it and put it off to another time. This then is Augustine's mind, that a man should pray so oft as he hath a disposition thereunto, and not defer his prayer, as they do, which bind themselves to Canonical hours.
THE FOURTH PART, CONCERNING THE maintenance of Monks.
The Papists.
[error 97] THey neither deny that it is unlawful for Monks to labor with their hands, where necessity, bodily strength, the order of the Church doth require thē, neither do they confess, that it is necessary for them to work: And so are not ashamed to maintain their idle, slothful, and Epicures life, Bellarm. cap. 41.42. Rhemists, Thessal. 2.3. sect. 2. But they may either live of the lands given to their houses, or else by their religious begging, cap. 44.
1 Monks are not now bound to work, having wherewithal to live beside of lands given unto them, because most of them are Priests, and do serve at the Altar, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, we grant that Ministers of the Gospel laboring in the word and Sacraments, ought to be maintained by the Gospel: But such are few or none of your Monks, who being fit for no other service either in the Church or commonwealth, are thrust into Monasteries by their friends: they are idolatrous Priests, and serve little better then at Baals altar. If any of them be fit for the Ministry, as we deny not but some have come out of your Cloisters, as Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, by whom the Church of God hath received much good: but they must come first out of your Dennes, and relinquish their Monkish life, and labor amongst the people: so shall they be no more regular, but secular priests, as you term them. Secondly, the lands which were bestowed upon them, were first given upon an evil intent, that by their prayers they should redeem the souls of their founders, who most of them had committed some notable sin, & so pro remedio animarū, to help their souls, they built Monasteries: So King Ethelstane for killing his brother Edwin, built two Monasteries, Middleton and Michelney for his soul, Fox. pag. 152. King Offa for killing Ethelbert a good Prince, who came peaceably for the despousage of Atheldred his daughter, being pricked in conscience, gave the first Peter pence to Rome, pag. 114. Those lands therefore being given first for ungodly purposes, and continued by them for idolatrous uses, ought clean to be taken from them, and to be bestowed upon better uses, neither is it lawful for them in that sort to enjoy them.
2 They prove the impudent begging of Friers, which they call religious begging, to be lawful and commendable, by the example of Christ, who had not a place where to put his head, Luk. 9. and of his Apostles, that were charged not to possess gold or silver in their purses, Math. 10. Bellarm. cap. 45.
Ans. First, I pray you where ever did you read that Christ went a begging? he lived not of alms, but gave alms, and Judas was the almesman, though he played his part but evil. Augustine flatly denieth that you avouch: He saith that Christ's bag was as Fiscus regis, even as the Kings Exchequer: and that what was given him, was as due as tribute money to the Prince: But the King, I trow, is not a beggar. Nisi putetis, (saith he) quia dominus petebat & indigebat, cui seruiebant angeli, qui de quinque panibus tot millia pauit. Unless you think (saith he) that Christ begged, and wanted, whom the Angels served, and who fed with five loaves not a few thousands, in Psal. 146. Secondly, if the Apostles were beggars, then they lived of alms, but that is untrue: for Christ saith, The laborer is worthy of his hire: but the laborers wages is earned and deserved, it is no alms.
The Protestants.
FIrst we say, that no idle persons ought to be maintained in a Christian commonwealth, but they that have not any other necessary calling, should labor with their hands, and therefore Monks that are fit for no other service in the Church, ought to labor and work.
1 Saint Paul giveth a general rule: He that will not work, let him not eat, 2. Thessal. 3.10. speaking of those that have no necessary calling in the Church: Ergo, Monks must work, or else by S. Paul's rule, not eat. The Rhemists answer, that this is but a natural admonition or counsel. Nay, it is a precept and commandment, that all in their several places and callings should labor, none live idly: for S. Paul saith not, this I counseled you, but this I warned you of, or denounced unto you, and he calleth those that followed not this rule, inordinate walkers.
2 Again, if you will needs have Monks, let them be as they were in times past: for then they were lay men and labored with their hands, till anno. 606. when Boniface made a decree that Monks might use the office of preaching and Christening: but before that, Monks were forbidden by the general Council of Chalcedon, not to entermeddle with matters Ecclesiastical, Fox. pag. 154. But perhaps they will say, as they do, that some of them work, as their Nuns: And I pray you, why not their Monks too? I think their great bellies hinder them. Neither are their Monks altogether idle; for some of them in painting, caruing, grauing, and garnishing their Idols, are very cunning. But, according to the saying, they might better be idle then ill occupied, and as good never a whit, as never the better.
3. Neither is it to be permitted, that Friers should get their living by begging: for what are they else but valiant beggars? First, there ought to be no beggars in the common-wealth: as Deuteron. 15. Though the Lord say, that they should never be without poor or beggars, which should want their help, verse. 11. Yet verse. 5. this charge is given, that by them, that is, their default, there should not be a beggar in Israel: they should so provide for the poor, that they need not go a begging. There are also positive laws, to restrain the number of beggars, and therefore there is no reason, that by a number of idle vagrant persons, belli-god Friers, that begging order should be enlarged. Secondly, but seeing it cannot be chosen, but there must needs be some beggars: they ought not to be young sturdy lubbers, that are able to work, as most of the Friers were, but such as are described, Luk. 14.21. where the King saith to his servants, Go out quickly, and bring hither the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind: Ergo, such lusty fellows ought to live by the sweat of their brows, not to eat up the bread of the poor. Lastly, in the sermons, Ad fratres in eremo, which are ascribed to Augustine, thus we read: Eia fratres mei, semper boni aliquid facite, quem tadet orare, vel psallere non desistat, quem taedet orare, vel psallere, manibus laborare non desistat. My brethren, always be ye doing of some good; if you be weary of praying, sing, if of singing, then labor with your hands. And in the same place, old men only of 80. year old are exempted from working. And in another place Augustine showeth, that the Monks in his time did so plye their work, Vsque adeo, vt etiam naues oneratas in ea loca mittant, qua inopes incolunt: that they sent ships laden with necessaries, unto those places where the poor inhabited. De morib. eccles. cap. 32. Ergo, in Augustine's time Monks lived not by begging, but with labor of their hands.
Thus by God's goodness we have finished this question, and this whole Controuersie: One other question remaineth: whether the Monastical life be meritorious or not: which we have referred to another place, when we shall come to the question of Virginitie in general and the privileges thereof.
THE SEVENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE.
M Any things, which Bellarmine in this controversy laboreth to prove, are agreed upon between us and our adversaries, and therefore we will spend no time in them.
1 We teach, as well as they, that there ought to be Magistrates, Princes and governors amongst Christians, contrary to that which the Anabaptists hold, that there ought to be equality among Christians: The holy Ghost, Judge. 17.6. & 19.1. maketh this the cause of all disorder, At that time in Israel there was no King amongst them, but every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes.
2 We do hold, that even wicked Kings and Tyrants have power over the goods and lives of men, neither that it is lawful to disobey them, but in matters only belonging to our conscience, where it is better to obey God then men, Jeremiah 27.6. I have given, saith the Lord, all these lands to Nebuchadnezzar.
3 Concerning the power of Princes, we grant, that they may make laws and ordinances to govern the people by, Prov. 8.15. that they may punish the offenders of their laws, Rom. 13. They do not bear the sword for naught: That it is lawful for Christian Princes, upon just occasion, to wage battle, Luk. 3.14. John the Baptist doth not condemn the calling of Soldiers, but teacheth them to use it aright.
These things then being agreed upon on both sides: the several questions, wherein we differ from them, and they from the truth, are these.
1 Concerning the authority of the Prince in Ecclesiastical matters, three parts of the question. First, whether he have power over persons Ecclesiastical. Secondly, whether over their goods. Thirdly, whether in Ecclesiastical causes.
2 Whether the civil Magistrate may prosecute heretics to death: and whether he ought to be the Judge of heretics, with other like questions.
3 Whether the positive and civil laws of Princes do bind their subjects and oblige them simply in conscience. This matter we have discussed before, Controuer. 4. quaest. 7. part. 1.
4 Whether the Pope ought or may excommunicate the Prince, or Emperor, or otherwise hath any temporal jurisdiction above him: this question also is handled before, Controu. 4. quaest. 8. part. 1.
THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNING THE AVthoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiastical matters.
THis question hath three parts. First, whether he have power over the persons Ecclesiastical. Secondly, whether over their goods. Thirdly, whether the Prince be chief in causes Ecclesiastical.
THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE AVTHOritie of the civil Magistrate over Ecclesiastical persons.
The Papists.
THe Clergy is not bound to keep and observe the civil and positive laws [error 98] of Princes, if they be contrary to the Canons of the Church: neither ought they for any cause to be cited before the civil Magistrate, or to be judged by him, Bellarm. de Clericis, cap. 28.
It is absurd (saith the Jesuit) that the sheep should judge the shepherd, Bellarm. And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and overseers, Heb. 13.17. and to submit themselves unto them, from which rule neither Kings nor Emperors are exēpted: Prelates must be obeyed, Ergo, not obey Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, the obedience here required we acknowledge, that it ought to be yielded by Kings & Emperors to those that have the oversight of their souls: for the Prince is bound to receive and believe all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church, agreeable to the word of God, under pain of damnation: and the Pastors are bound under the like pain to obey the Princes laws, made according to the word of God. Secondly, wherefore the spiritual obedience of the civil Magistrate to the word of God, taught by the Pastors of the Church, is no exemption of them from their civil obedience: for every soul is subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13.1. Fulk. annot. 13. Heb. sect. 9
The Protestants.
THat Ecclesiastical persons are subject to temporal governors, and are to be judged by their laws, the scriptures speak plainly.
1 Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Ergo, Bishops, yea the Pope himself, if he have a soul. The like saith S. Peter, 1.2.13. Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance. Solomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood, and put in Sadock. Paul appealed, and submitted himself to Caesar. Again, if Priests offend and commit any grievous sin, as of murder, theft, who shall punish them? The civil Magistrate only beareth the sword: They must either grant, that priests are no evil doers, which were to too gross: or if they be, that they are under the civil Magistrates power: for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance upon every evil doer, Rom. 13.4.
In Augustine's time, the controversies between the Catholic and Donatist Bishops, were committed to the judgment of the Emperor. Ait quidam, saith he, Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari: Quasi vero ipse sibi hoc comparauerit, ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserat, ad cuius curam, de qua rationem deo red liturus est res illa maxim pertinebat. But, saith one, a Bishop ought not to have been purged before the Proconsul, or civil Magistrate: As though (saith Augustine ) the Proconsul did of himself intermeddle in this matter, and was not commanded rather of the Emperor so to do: unto whose charge that matter principally appertained, and whereof he shall make account unto God: Ergo, by his sentence, the cause of the Bishop principally was to be judged by the Emperor.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE PRINCE have power over Ecclesiastical goods.
The Papists.
THe goods of the Clergy both secular and Ecclesiastical, are and ought to [error 99] be exempted from paying tribute to Princes; yet they have not this liberty, say they, by the Law of God, but by the grant of Princes themselves, Rhemist. annot. Rom. 13. sect. 5. Bellarm. de Clericis. cap. 28.
Genes. 47.22. & 27. The lands of the Priests were exempted from paying tribute: Ergo, it seemeth that this custom is grounded upon the law of nature, Bellarm.
Ans. First, the Hebrew word signifieth rather Presidents, such as were the Kings officers, not Priests, as Tremellius showeth: who were maintained by the Kings provision, being officers of his household: for Genes. 41.45. Joseph is said to marry the daughter of Potyphar prince, not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there used: for it is not like that Joseph would match himself with an idolatrous priests daughter. Secondly, but be it granted, this was but a politic constitution for that country: other Princes are not bound to Pharaoh his law. Thirdly, they gain nothing by this, but that it is an human constitution.
The Protestants.
THat Princes have authority to punish Ecclesiastical persons offending in their goods; either by displacing them, or by converting the Church possessions by them abused, to better uses, we have shown before, Contr. 5. quest. 6. part. 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute, subsidy, tax, unto the prince, thus now it is proved.
1 Our Savior Christ paid poll money, Math. 17.25. Rom. 13. Every soul ought to be subject to the higher powers, and there verse. 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subjection: the argument therefore thus followeth: Clergy men are subject to Princes, therefore they ought to pay tribute.
2 Ex concessis, we reason thus from their own confession: That which Princes gave to the Church, upon good cause they may take away: but this immunity, not to pay tribute, was first granted, as they confess, to the Church, by Kings and Princes: Ergo, they have the same right, having just occasion, to take it from them again. What Augustine's judgment is, we have seen in the place before alleged.
THE THIRD PART, CONCERNING THE PRINCES authority in causes Ecclesiastical.
The Papists.
[error 100] THe Prince, they say, hath no authority to give voice deliberatiue or definitive in Councils concerning matters of religion, nor to make laws Ecclesiastical concerning the same: Only they give them authority to execute the Ecclesiastical laws made by the Church, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 14.16. Bellarm. de pontif. lib. 1. cap. 7.
1 Kings and Princes may in their own persons execute if they will, whatsoever their inferior officers do, as to hear and determine causes, as the Judges and other Magistrates do: but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiastical function, as to preach, baptize: Ergo, he hath no authority in causes Ecclesiastical: for how can the Prince impart that to others, whereof he is himself incapable, as to give Bishops and Pastors power to ordain, to preach, and such like, Bellarm. Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, the authority of civil Magistrates doth not give anything to Ecclesiastical Ministers, which appertaineth to their office, as to ordain, preach, baptize, neither is the Prince to deal in these offices: yet may the civil Magistrates command them to execute their charge and duties according to the word of God. Wherefore it followeth not, Princes cannot execute the pastoral duties themselves: Ergo, they ought not to see them executed. David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Ezechia, commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God, though it was not lawful for them, neither did they execute anything proper to the Priests office in their own persons; neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiastical functions: wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine, which he giveth forth of our Queen, I am re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex. And now (saith he) in England the Calvinists have a certain woman for their chief Bishop. De notis eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9.
2 It doth not follow, that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiastical offices, as he may civil in his own person, if he have authority over both: No more then it followeth, that because Ecclesiastical persons do teach both civil Magistrates and Church officers their duties, and may in their own persons execute the one, that is, spiritual duties, that they may as well intermeddle in the other: But these two offices of Civil and Ecclesiastical government are distinguished, and must not be confounded. The Prince, though he have authority to command Ecclesiastical persons, yet being a civil Magistrate, is not to deal with the execution of spiritual duties. Bishops & pastors likewise have a spiritual charge over kings & princes, to show thē their duties out of God's word, yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical, they ought not to meddle with mere Civil duties. The Prince hath the sovereignty of external government in all causes & over all persons, yet not alike, for Civil offices he may both command and execute; Ecclesiastical duties he commandeth only: Bishops and pastors have also a spiritual charge over all, prescribing out of God's word as well the duty of Magistrates, as of Ministers, but not alike, for the one they may fully execute, so may they not the other. The head in the natural body, resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth, in some sense: the head giveth moving to the whole body and all the parts thereof: but to the principal parts in the head the eyes, tongue, ears, it giveth beside the faculty of moving, the sense also of seeing, tasting, hearing: So in the common-wealth, by the Princes authority all persons are kept in order, and urged to look to their charge, both civil officers and spiritual, as all the parts of the body receive moving from the head: But the civil officers receive power and authority beside, and their very offices of the King, as the parts in the head, receive sense from their fountain: but Ecclesiastical Ministers receive not their offices from the Prince, or any mortal man, but they have their calling according to the order of the Church of God.
Argum. 2. For the space of 300. years the Church after Christ had no Christian governors, but all Heathen and Idol worshippers, yet then the Church was established, and prevailed: Ergo, Civil Magistrates ought not to deal in Ecclesiastical affairs, Bellarmine.
Ans. 1. Even then also, the Heathen Emperors had authority in Church matters, and if they had commanded anything agreeable to true religion, they should have been obeyed: as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple, Ezra. 1. Darius the Median, for worshipping the true God, Dan. 6. Fulk. Rom. 13. sect. 3. The heathen Emperors then had the same power, but they knew not how to use it: Christian Princes do succeed them in the same office, but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword. Secondly, we deny not but that in the time of persecution all things necessary for the spiritual building thereof may be had, without the Magistrate, as a Vineyard may bring forth fruit without an hedge, but it cannot enjoy peace, nor be in a perfect estate, in respect of the external government, but under good Magistrates, as the Vineyard may soon be spoiled, the wild bore and the beasts of the field may break in upon it having no hedge. The child being in the womb, though it have as yet small use of the head, but is fed by the nauell, which is in steed of the mouth, hath in it self the lineaments and proportion of a human body, yet it wanteth the perfect beauty, till it be borne and come forth, and the head receive his office: So may the Church have a being in persecution, and the want of the civil head may be otherwise supplied, but it is not beautiful till the head be set up, and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand.
Argum. 3. Princes have no cure nor charge of souls: Ergo, they are not to meddle with Ecclesiastical laws, Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 14. sect. 16.
Ans. Parents have charge over the souls of their childrē, for they are charged to bring them up in the instruction and information of the Lord, Ephes. 6.4. Therefore Princes also have directly charge of the souls of their subjects according to their place and calling, by providing and making good Ecclesiastical laws, and compelling them to the true service of God: As the Ecclesiastical Ministers in another kind, and more properly are said to have the cure of souls, in feeding and instructing the people, Fulk. ibid.
The Protestants.
THe civil Magistrate, by the word of God, hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiastical laws, and to establish true religion, and see that all persons under their government do faithfully execute their charge: To say therefore that the Church officers are to devise laws concerning religion, and the Prince only to execute them, is to make the Prince their servant, and doth derogate too much from the princely authority: Neither do we give unto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiastical laws: for first, the Prince is not to prescribe what laws he listeth to the Church, but such as only may require the true worship of God. Secondly, that it is expedient and meet, according to the commendable custom of this land, that the godly learned of the Clergy should be consulted withal, in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances, unless it be in such a corrupt time, when the Church governors are enemies to religion, for then the Prince, not staying upon their judgment, ought to reform religion according to the word of God, as we see it was lawfully and godly practiced by King Henry the 8. Thirdly, we do make exception of all such Ecclesiastical canons and ordinances, the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and governors of the Church: for our meaning is not, that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers, to make Ecclesiastical decrees, which do properly concern their office, as concerning the censures of the Church, excommunication, suspension, absolving, binding, loosing, and such like, which things are incident to their pastoral office: and yet we grant, that the Prince hath even in these cases an overruling hand, to see that none abuse their pastoral office. But that any laws ought to be made without the authority of the prince, which the prince is bound, to execute, we utterly deny: And so we conclude, that the civil Magistrate hath power over all persons and in all causes, both temporal and ecclesiastical, in such manner as we have said.
1 S. Paul willeth, that prayers should be made for Kings and Princes, that under them we may lead a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, 1. Tim. 2.2. Ergo, it is their duty as well to procure religion by their authority, as civil honesty. Again, He beareth not the sword for naught, Rom. 13.4. He hath power to punish all evil doers: therefore also to correct evil ministers, & to make Ecclesiastical laws: for otherwise he should have no full power to correct the transgressors thereof.
2 We read that Joshua, David, Solomon, Iosia, did deal in ecclesiastical matters, which concerned religion and the worship of God. Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinary authority, not as Kings, but as Prophets. Nay, it was an ordinary power: for all the good kings of Judah beside, as Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and others, did take care of religion: & this was so properly annexed to the kingly office, that idolatrous kings also took upon them to command false religion, as Jeroboam set up two golden calves, and Ahaz king of Judah commanded Uriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the pattern which he sent from Damascus, 2. King. 16.11. This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperors: as Constantine, Theodosius, Martianus, made laws for the Church, Fulk. annot. 1. Cor. 14. sect. 16. Iustinianus the Emperor decreed many things concerning Church affairs: as how excommunication should be used, how Bishops and Priests should be ordained, concerning the order and manner of funerals: that the holy mysteries should not be done in private houses. Carolus magnus decreed, that only the Canonical books of scripture should be read in the Church: he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word. Lodouicus Pius his son, and Emperor after him, ordained that no entry should be made into the Church by Simony: that Bishops should be chosen by the free election of the Clergy and the people. All these Emperors did lawfully exercise their princely authority in Ecclesiastical matters: Ergo, other princes may do the same still.
3 Augustine saith, Epistol. 50. Quis mente sobrius &c? Who in his right wits would say to the King, It pertaineth not to you, who in your kingdom is religious or sacrilegious, to whom it cannot be said, let it not pertain unto you, who in your kingdom will be chaste or unchaste? And in another place, Ad fratres in erem. serm. 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtra{que} parte acutus, quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs, & animam à spiritualibus molestijs. Then justice is rightly called a sword with a double edge, because it doth both defend the body from external and corporal wrongs, and the soul from spiritual vexation: That is, the sword of the Magistrate serveth as well to prune the Church, and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion, as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners.
AN APPENDIX OR FOURTH PART OF THE QVEstion, whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdom, and consequently of the Church in his kingdom.
The Papists.
THey do appropriate this title, to be called heads of the universal Church, to [error 101] the Pope of Rome, most blasphemouslie: for there can be no head of the universal body but Christ: But for Princes to be called the head, that is, chief governors of the Churches in their kingdoms, they do abhor it. Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucy as to check and control King Henry the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church.
1 The heathen Emperors were not heads of the Church, being not so much as members thereof: therefore neither Christian Magistrates, which do succeed them in that authority, Rhemist. annot. 1. Pet. 2. sect. 6.
Ans. 1. The argument followeth not: they were no true menbers of the Church, therefore could not be heads, that is, have the sovereignty of the external government: for wicked kings and princes do keep their magistracy & government still: who though they be not true members of the Catholic Church, yet ought to be obeyed as princes. 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not unto them, yet were they by God's ordinance appointed to be heads & governors of his people & protectors of his Church, & should have been, if they had not abused their authority. 3. Christian princes, though they have the same authority, which they had, yet now exercising the sword according to God's law, and being Nurses of the Church, may use and retain those princely titles in deed, to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith, & head, that is, chief governors and protectors of the Church: which by right had been due unto the other, if they had used their authority as they should.
2 Christian princes are members of the Church, Ergo, not heads: for if they were heads, how could the Church stand without them, as it did in the time of persecution?
Ans. First, as though the head is not a member and part of the body, though a principal one: so the Prince is a member of the Church, but a principal and chief member, not of the invisible Church, for so Christ is only head, but of a particular visible Church. Secondly, we deny not but that the invisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate, but a visible, flourishing, and well-governed Church cannot want a head or chief governor, that is as a wall or hedge unto it.
The Protestants.
TO be head of the universal Church is proper only to Christ, and in that sense is not communicable to any creature: for he is to his Church, as the head to the natural body, giving unto it influence of grace, spirit and life: he is therefore the only mystical head of the universal Church: But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chief governor of his kingdom, & of that particular visible Church, where he is king: We make him neither the mystical head, which is only Christ, (far be that blasphemy from us) nor a ministerial head, as they make the Pope to be as Christ's Vicegerent in the Church; but a political head, to keep and preserve the peace of the Church, and to see that every member do his office and duty. But this name we confess is improperly given to the Prince, neither were we the first inuentors of it: for the papists first gave it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which do sufficiently express the office of the Prince, and may be more safely used. If any man think it too high a name for any mortal man, and so not to be given to any, we will not greatly contend about it: But if any deny it to the Prince, as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters, we do stand stiffly for it; and are bold to affirm, that with much better right is this title attributed to the civil Magistrate then it was to the Pope: yea, and that it hath been of old given in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes, and may with a favorable exposition be still: and Princes also may receive this honor and title at their subjects hands, with protestation of their Christian meaning herein.
1 This phrase, for the King to be called the head, is not unusual in scripture, 1. Sam. 15.17. Saul is said to be the head of the tribes. Psal. 18.43. David the head of the nations: Isaiah. 9.15. The Prince or honorable man the head of the people: yea Princes are called God's, Psal. 82.2. which is a name of greater Soueraigntie, then to be called heads. Bellarmine answereth: Princes do rule over their subjects as men, not as Christians, and Kings are set over the people not as they are Christians, but politic persons: so the Prince is head of the kingdom, not of the Church, De pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7.
Ans. Stephen Gardener taketh away this cavil very sufficiently, we will set one Papist against another. It is all one (saith he) to call the Prince head of the Church of England, and head of the Realm of England: for if all Englishmen be his subjects, why are they not his subjects, as they are Christians? If the wife or servant be subject to the master or husband being infidels, doth their conversion, or name of Christians make them less subject, then they were before? Haec ill. Again, how far is this, I pray you, from Anabaptistry, to say, that subjects, only as men, not as Christians, are in subjection to Princes? for doth it not follow hereupon, that as Christians they ought to have no superior or Magistrate?
2 It is sufficient for us, that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to every Prince in his own kingdom, thē to the Pope, for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church: he is not the mystical head, neither dare they say so: for Christ only is the head in that manner: neither can he be the Ministerial head of the universal Church: for the Catholic Church is a body mystical, & must needs have a mystical head: neither is he the political head of any particular Church: for no Bishop can be a political head: because he that is the head and chief must have a coactiue power, to bind his subjects to obedience: so hath not any Bishop: The Prince only beareth the sword, and enforceth obedience. Again, in a far diverse sense is the Prince called the head, then the Pope was: for first the Pope challenged to be head of the universal Church: but the prince is chief only in his own kingdom. Secondly, the Pope would be an absolute head, to do all upon earth that Christ did, yea and more to, to bind and loose at his pleasure, to depose Kings, to dispense with the word of God, to constitute and make laws at his pleasure: in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him, Christus & Papa vnum faciunt consistorium, & excepto peccato potest Papa, quasi omnia facere, quae potest Deus: Christ and the Pope make but one Consitory, & keep but one court; & sin only excepted, the Pope in a manner can do all things that God can do. But we do limit the power of the Prince: who is not to impose any laws upon the Church, but such as are agreeable to the word of God: neither do we make him a spiritual officer, as the Pope would be, but a civil governor, who by positive laws is to provide for the peace and welfare of the Church.
Lastly, S. Peter saith, Submit yourselves to the King as the chief, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or most excelling: what is this else, but as to the head? what is it to be chief but to be head? But we will not much contend for the name, so they will grant us the thing: namely, that the Prince is a commander even in Ecclesiastical matters, as Augustine saith: In hoc reges Deo seruiunt, si mala prohibeant, nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam, quae ad diuinam religionem. Cont. Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings do good service to God, if they forbid evil to be done, not only in matters pertaining to human society, but in things concerning religion. As for the title, to be called head, let them cease to call their chief Bishop so who hath no right unto it, and we will promise also to lay it down, though in good sense we might use it, though the Pope had never laid claim thereunto.
THE SECOND QUESTION, CONCERNING THE authority of the Prince in punishing heretics.
WE do willingly grant, that obstinate heretics and peruerters of the faith, if they persist in their damnable opinions, and remain incorrigible, may, and ought to be cut off and punished by death, to make others to fear: so Seruetus at Geneva, and one Valentinus at Berne, both monstrous heretics, not amongst the Papists, but by the Protestants were worthily put to death. In this therefore we and our adversaries agree, that heretics may be punished by death by the civil Magistrate. If Luther, or any other have held any private opinion to the contrary, let them answer for themselves: but although we vary not in the principal, yet there are certain circumstances and accessories greatly material, wherein they both dissent from us, and from the truth.
1 They would have the Magistrate only to be their executioner, the judgment of heresy they say belongeth to the Church: for they cited, examined, judged, disgraded, condemned heretics, and then gave them over to the secular [error 102] power: this was the common practice of their Church.
But we hold, that the hearing, judgment, sentence and condemnation of heretics belongeth to the civil Magistrate, as well as the execution: because these actions are proper to the civil sword, which the Magistrate beareth, Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5. The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the city where the civil Magistrate was wont to sit. Augustine is of the same mind, Cur in veneficos, vigorē legū exerceri just fatentur, in haereticos & schismaticos nolunt fateri? Cont. epist. Parmen. 1.7. Why do they grant, that the vigor of the law may justly be executed upon witches, and not as well upon heretics and schismatics? But the causes of witches are heard, judged, and handled before the civil Magistrate: Ergo, also the cause of heretics. Augustine's reason is out of the 5. Galath. 20. The works of the flesh are manifest, which are adultery, fornication, idolatry, witchcraft, and heresies are also reckoned up amongst: All these are works of the flesh, Ergo, the Magistrate being appointed to punish evil doers, hath as full right to deal against them all, as some.
2 We differ about the way and means to try an heretic by: They affirm, that he is an heretic only that is so judged by a general Council, or the sentence [error 103] of the chief pastors of the Church: they would have an heretic tried by the constitutions and Canons of their Church, Annot. Tit. 3. sect. 2. Rhemist.
We say, that an heretic is to be convicted by the scriptures, and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authority of scripture, may be judged an heretic without a general Council: So Augustine writeth, answering the Pelagians, who objected that they were condemned without a Synod. Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat, vt aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando, nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit. As though a Synod need to be congregate or called, to condemn such open wickedness, as if never any heresy had been condemned but in a Synod or Council: Cont. 2. epistol. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 12. This is that heretical opiniō, as they call it, which the Council of Constance condemned in John Hus, & him together with it, because he said,
Fox. pag. 610. articul. 18.
3 Again, they used unlawful ways and unjust, in sifting and examining, by [error 104] cruel torments the poor innocents brought before them, neither showing accusers nor witnesses: John Brown Martyr appearing before Warrham and Fisher, two bloudsuckers, was burned with hot coals, his bare feet being set upon thē: Fox. p. 1292. Cutbert Symsons fingers were grated with an arrow, and he himself piteously racked, to be made betray his innocent brethren, p. 2032. Tomkins hand was burned by Bonner, till the sinews sparkled again, pag. 1533. And these were the witnesses and accusers that were brought against them.
This was clean contrary to the law of Moses: At the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death die, Deuteron. 17.6. Augustine saith, Quis iudex accusantis sumat personam? &c. What Judge would take upon him to be an accuser? Our Lord Christ knew Judas to be a thief (saith he:) yet because he was not accused, he did not cast him off. He counteth it a very unnatural thing for the Judge to be an accuser, and to proceed without witnesses: which although in some criminal cases is more tolerable, yet in the cases of life and death ought in no wise to be used. The same judgment also Augustine giveth of that cruel custom of tormenting men, to convince them by their own mouth, which was invented by the heathen, but never more cruelly practiced, then among the papists: Hoc intolerabile est (saith he) & rigandum fontibus lacrymarum, cum propterea torqueat iudex accusatum, ne occidat nesciens innocentem, & fit per ignorantiam, vt & tortum & innocentem occidat, quem ne innocentem occideret, torserat: How intolerable a thing is it, and to be much lamented, that while the Judge tormenteth the party accused, lest unwittingly he should put an innocent man to death; it falleth out that he adiudgeth to death a man both innocent, & beside tormented, whom, lest he should slay as an innocent, he before put to torment. His meaning is, that when a man is put to the rack, or otherwise tortured, that he might confess the truth, and clear himself; it cometh to pass, that through extremity of the pain, he maketh himself guilty, and so the innocent is both wrongfully tormented, and unjustly put to death. Which kind of forcing men by torture, though in some dangerous cases, as of high treason, and such like, where there is great peril in the concealing of the truth, and no other way to sift it out, may be admitted: yet to use it as an ordinary course as the papists did, and in causes of religion, it is to too shameful, and of all Christians to be abhorred.
4 Where have they learned so hotly and fiercely to pursue simple men and women to death, for none or very small offenses, which they notwithstanding [error 105] falsely called heresy? Was it heresy for James Brewster to hear one Sweeting to read many good things out of a certain book: or for the same Sweeting, when as the said James should say, Now the son of the living God help us, to answer, Now almighty God so do? yet for these heresies were they both condemned and burnt in Smithfield, Anno. 1511. Fox. pag. 818.
A woman of Auspurge had like to have been burned, for asking a priest that carried the Host to a sick man with Taper-light, what he meant to go with a light at noon day, if Mary the Emperors sister had not made suit for her, Anno. 1550.
Anno 1525. a Monk burned in France, because he had forsaken his abominable order and married a wife, pag. 896.
Johannes de Cadurco, being at a feast, where it was agreed that everyone should bring forth this posy or sentence, because he brought forth this: Christ reign in our hearts, and prosecuted it out of the scriptures, was burned, Anno. 1533. pag. 897.
A Tailor burned at Paris anno. 1549. for working upon an holy day: ex Johan. Crispin. Fox p. 903.
Ralfe Hare constrained to abjure for saying before the Bishop of Winchester : The Lord is my witness, It is Symbolum Haereticorum, saith Winchester, a mark to know heretics by, to say the Lord, the Lord, page 1225.
One Thomas Sanpaulinus Matyr, because he rebuked a man for swearing, was thereupon suspected to be a Lutheran, examined, condemned and burned at Paris, anno. 1551. pa. 904. Many such like examples might be produced of holy Martyrs, which for these and such other great heresies were put to death.
And as the offenses were very small, as we see, so their manner of proceeding was most cruel, void of all humanity. They spared not women with child: We have not forgotten that famous example of their cruelty, which shall be remembered to their perpetual shame and infamy: Howe they burned 3. simple women in the Isle of Garnsey, anno 1556. which had submitted thenselves to their mercy, one of the three was great with child, which brast out of her womb in the midst of the fire, and was thrown in again. pa. 1944.
They had no compassion of the tender age of children: In the town of Byrbroke, while Richard Chapman did penance in the Church, being enjoined to kneel barefoot, and bare legged all the sermon while upon the cold steps of the Church: a little boy for giving him his hat to kneel upon, was had into the vestrie and piteously scourged. pa. 1047. Cruel Bonner burned Richard M • kins a child of 15. years, for speaking against the sacrament of the alter, who notwithstanding at the stake was taught to speak much good of the B. of London, and so did, pa. 1202. John F • ttie his child being of 8. year old, for saying to one of the Bishops Chaplens, that he had Balaam's mark, was scourged so cruelly, that within 14 days he died.
Nay such was their cruelty, they condemned to death men that were bestraught of their wits: as Collins and Cowbridge were burned being both frantic, see their story. page 1131.
Where is now that lenity and compassion, which ought to be in the Ministers of the Gospel? Such cruelty was not heard of, no not amongst the heathen. Yea they break their own law: which suffereth a man once to abjure his heresy, but if afterward he be detected, he dieth without mercy. Fox. Anno. 1511. William Carder & Agnes Grebil were condemned, though they submitted thenselves, and promised to be conformable to their religion. page 1277.
Yet this law of theirs is most unjust, and contrary to the gospel, which faith, that if thy brother sin against thee 7. times in a day, and 7. times in a day turn again, and say, It repenteth me, thou shalt forgive him. Luke 17.4. Yet these men will forgive but once, and not that neither: But S. Paul saith, An heretic after once or twice admonition reject. Bellarm. his best answer is by denying the text, saying, that it was not so red in former times: but thus, after once admonition. de laicis. cap. 22.
There was more clemency used in Augustine's time: for then Bishops did not provoke the Magistrate to execute whom they had condemned, but did entreat the Magistrate to show compassion unto Heretics, not straight ways to punish them with death: Ne sic vitam istam finiant (saith Augustine) per supplicium, vt ea finita non possint finire supplicium, Least they should so end this life by punishment, that the life being ended, they should never end their punishment. Epist. 54. And in another place, sic eorum peceata compesce, vt sint, quos poeniteat peccasse, Epist. 159. So restrain their sins, that they may yet remain to repent them of their sins: In those days therefore, men were not by and by punished with death to prevent their repentance, as in time of popery, but their repentance was expected, to deliver them from the sentence of death. Thus much of this question, as likewise of the whole controversy: and thus far also concerning such controversies, as are moved about the Church militant, here upon earth: which we have hitherto prosequuted by the Lord's gracious assistance: In the next place we are to deal in those controversies, which concern the other part of the Church triumphant in heaven.
1. Timoth. 6.16.
Soli Deo immortali Patri, Filio, cum spiritu sancto sit honor & imperium sempiternum.
THE SECOND BOOKE OR CENTURY, CONTAINING AN OTHER LARGE HVNDRETH OF POPISH errors, and many of them foul heresies, divided into six several Controuersies: CONCERNING THE ESTATE OF THE CHURCH TRIVMPHANT IN Heaven, and the Sacraments of the Church Militant upon earth.
Jmprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man. 1592.
ILLVSTRISSIMO ET INclytissimo Domino Comiti Essexio, non tam generis claritate, quam virtute sua nobili de re literaria, studiosisque omnibus semper optime merito, Dominoque mihi multis nominibus colendissimo.
S Cite illud (Nobilissime Comes) ab Epicharmo olim dictum perhibetur:
Qua sententia monet, neruos atque artus esse sapientiae, nō temere credere: Idque pulchre depingi solet oculatae manus effigie: vt ne vel manu contrectare, vel pugillo premere, id est, mentis consensu & iudicio approbare audeamus, quod nō prius penitus exploratū habuerimus. Hoc sequi cōsiliū si nostrates voluissent, (papicolas volo, et pontificiae haerese • s sectatores Anglos) si singula ad trutinam expēdissent prius, ad quae postea admouerunt manus, non tam temere & imprudenter callidis doctoribus aurem praebuissent, nec tam facile & cito a sana doctrina desciuissent.
Multi enim apud nos sunt imperiti homunciones, & indoctae mulierculae (quanquam & doctos etiam aliquos, et satis cordatos viros ex isto genere agnouerim) qui nec scientia armati, nec animi proposito stabiles, nescientes lethale, non minutim & guttatim, sorbillarunt, sed pleno gutture hauserunt venenum: dum nihil probantes, vel examinantes, se papisticae superstitionis astutijs illaqueari passi sunt. Haec dum meeum serio cogito, & altiùs tanquam ex animi specula prospiciens contueor; non ex alijs initijs, quā temeritatis, & ignorantiae, hoc tā magnum malum enatum & exortum video. Jgnorantiae est, quod veritate spreta & neglecta, errores sponte & libere imbiberūt & amplexati sunt: temeritatis vero, quod se, nullo delectu habito, seditiosis & impijs magistris in disciplinam tradere voluerunt. Qui non Epicharmi philosophi humanum, sed Pauli Apostoli diuinum consilium respuunt: qui sic monet, Omnia probate, & quod bonum est tenete. Contra istos etiam satis nos cautos dedit dominus Christus, sic praemonens, Cauete a Prophetis mendacibus, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ouium, sed intrinsecus sunt lupi rapaces. Cum igitur multos quorūdā insidijs deceptos in fraudem illici, & in errores toto impetu praecipitari cernerem, idque non alij principio, quā ipsorum ignorantiae tribuendum esse: operae precium facturum duxi, si quis papisticae superstitionis capita in synopsin quandam cōijcere studeret, et passim verae fidei ex scriptures adhibens antidotum, vniuersam doctrinam pontificiam vno intuitu conspiciendam proponeret. Hoc opus tam necessarium; cum diu expectassem, dum aggrederentur, alij, cum neminem huc animum applicasse, aut id in animo habere perspexeram: Ego tandem prodij e multis millibus ad hoc onus sustinendum minime omnium idoneus. Qui me operam meam non perditurum, sed aliquid Ecclesiae commodi allaturam mihi persuaseram, si in isto opere desudarē, vt haberent nostrates, quo aduersus haeresin pontificiam instructiores esse possint.
Numerū si quis quaerat haerese • n, quas Romana ecclesia orbi nostro propinauit, mensuram omnem & modum superant, & ad immensam molem excrescunt: Trecentos ego, & plures hoc opere percurri errores pontificios, nec omnes tamen complexus sum. Varro scriptor ill copiosus, & vir multae lectionis (vt scribit August.) philosophorum sectas vsque ad ducentas octoginta octo numerauit et recēsuit. Sed a papistis huius seculi errorū varietate & multitudine veteres illi superantur. Scripsit non multis abhinc annis libellum Tilemannus quidā Heshusius, qui sic inscribitur: Sexcenti errores pontificij: Geminauit ill & duplum effecit numerū hunc, quem nos secuti sumus. Trecentos nos malumus, quam sexcentos ponere: Non quod non putem, tot vitijs & corruptelis superstitionem pontificiam scatere: vel non posse tot colligi illius synagogae errores: Sed id feci iā partim, quia praecipua capita maxim prose • ui cupiebam, caetera missa faciens (quanquam credo paucissima sint, quae me in hoc opere subterfugerint) partim, quia distinctius ill interdum eorum sententias profert, quàm opus habuit, in diuersa loca dispertiens, quae commode ad vnam classem referri poterant. Breuiter a me omnia tractata, & tanquam per saltum decursa sunt: ad amussim enim singula expendere, & omnes rimari angulos, longioris esset operis, & viribus meis maioris. Atque cū ego Enchiridion potius conficere volui, quod (vt eleganter Aug.) manibus possit adstringi, nō quod armaria possit onerare, vt fusius iam & vberius singula explicentur, nō breui Enchiridio (vt idem ait) manus debuit impleri, sed grandi studio pectus accendi.
Tuo vero Honori (Nobilissime Comes) hanc mediam istius operis partē consecratam volui: Primo vt munusculo hoc prioris doni tenuitatem compensarem: vt libelli illius, quem tuo honor indignum, tuo tamen nomine in publicum emittere ausus sum, secundae nostrae lucubrationes indignitatem praestarēt. Jterum verae te religions & professionis Euangelicae, non fautorem solum, sed patronum eximium norimus omnes, & libenter vereque agnoscimus. Nobili enim vestrae familiae id insitum credo est. Jn te enim auita virtus repullulat, & patris resplendet imago: Qui non tam Euangelio ornamento, cum viueret, quàm Euangelium ipsi honori fuit.
Titulus etiam vester id indicat: Quantum enim Essexiorum Comitum studio Euangelij negotium promotum sit, ignorare non possunt, qui Cromwelli Nobilissimi Comitis Essexij meminisse velint. Quid vero nomen? Nonne auspicato tibi obtigisse videtur? vt omnes iam ad superbos Euangelij hosts deuorandos, natum nobilem Deuorosum intelligant? Cui ergo iustiori titulo hanc operis partem nuncuparem, quàm tibi, facile non occurrebat quispiam. Tertio denique vestro patrocinio opusculum hoc commendatum volui, vt tui nominis & nobilitatis veluti alis & vmbra tectum, facilius linguarum vel vitaret asperitatem vel minus pertimesceret. Si quis enim leuiter in nos insultans verborum telis nostra haec appetere gestit: Augustini illud responsum a meferet. Nunc ergo (ait) ne tui stomachi follis indigesta maledictorū cruditate rumpatur, in hunc euome, si audes calūniosas tuas vanitates, vestra scilicet virtus (Optime Comes) haec nostra in tutelā suscipiens, de iniustis hominum querelis & contumelijs aut penitus securum, aut minus sollicitum dabit: Quibus ego sic exorsus dicerem, agite boni viri, in nobilem hunc tela vestra conijcite: nisi per illius latus, causa nostra non perfoditur: Et sic tandem coeptis desisterent, ne dū nostra conuitijs conuellerēt, tuo honori vim attulisse viderentur. Valeat, viuat, vigeat Nobilitas tua: Et pergas adhuc illustrissime Domine, quod etiamnum facis, bonos fouere, virtutem amare, religionem colere: Et te vicissim amet, foueat, seruet incolumem Deus optim. Max. in perpetuum.
Tuo Honori addictissim. Andr. Willet.
HERE FOLLOW THE controversies concerning the Church Triumphant.
T Hey are two in number: The first is as touching the condition, office and Ministry of Angels: The second of and concerning the Saints departed.
THE EIGHT CONTROVERSIE concerning Angels.
THis controversy containeth 3. questions. First, of the Hierarchy and holy degrees of Angels: Secondly, of their ministry and office: Thirdly, of the worship and invocation of Angels.
THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERning the Celestial Hierarchye, or degrees of Angels.
THis question hath like wise two partes: First, how many degrees there be of Angels, Secondly, whether Michael be the Prince of the Angels.
THE FIRST PART OF THE DIVERS orders and degrees of Angels.
The Papists.
THey do boldly affirm, that there are nine orders of Angels, and those that do doubt of it, they charge with infidelity and blasphemy: There are first principalities, then potestates. 3. powers. 4. dominations: Eph. 1.21. 5. there are thrones. Coloss. 1.16. unto these ad 4. other, Cherubim, Seraphim, Angels, Archangels: so have we nine in all. Rhemist. annot. Ephe. 1 sect. 4.
The Protestants.
AS of the diversity of names we gather, that there are diverse orders, so to [error 1] inquire of them more subtly, to define their number, and appoint their degrees: it is a point not only of foolish curiosity, but also of ungodly and dangerous rashness, ex Caluino. Fulk. ibid.
Augustine saith, Quid inter se distent quatuor illa vocabula, throni, dominationes, principatus, potestates, dicant qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt, ego me ista ignorare confiteor. What difference there is between these four words, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, let them tell us, that be able, so they can prove that they tell us: for my part, I confess I know it not. August. Enchiridion. cap. 58. With Augustine therefore we confess, that as it appeareth by these several names, there are distinct orders of Angels: so how many there be, and how they are distinguished, the scripture hath not revealed unto us: and it were curiosity for us to inquire: We shall then know, when we shall be like unto the Angels.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER MICHAEL be the prince of the Angels.
The Papists.
[error 2] THey say, that in heaven beside God himself, there is another commander and captain of the Angels, even Michael the prince of the Angels: which place the devil had in the beginning before his fall. For as the scripture saith, the devil and his angels, meaning, that all evil angels are subject unto him: so by Michael and his angels, we understand all good angels, that are likewise subject to him, Apocal. 12.7. Rhemist. Bellarm. de pontif. lib. 1. cap. 9.
The Protestants.
FIrst, Michael in that place signifieth Christ, who is Lord of the angels; for the angels cannot be said to be any other Michaels angels, but only the angels of God and Christ: Fulk. ibid. This is also proved by the text, verse. 10. Now is come salvation, the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ, for the accuser of the brethren is cast out. Here he is called Christ, which before is named Michael. Augustine also so expoundeth it, Michaëlem intellige Christum: By Michael understand Christ: Homil. 9. in Apocalypse.
Secondly, it followeth not, that as there is a chief and captain of the evil angels, so amongst the good there should be a chief angel above the rest, beside Christ: for it is sufficient that there is one Lord and prince of the angels, even Christ. Secondly, neither is it proved out of scripture, that amongst the devils there is one captain and great devil to whom the rest were subjects: for whereas the Pharisees objected, that Christ cast out devils through Beelzebub the prince of the devils, Mark. 3. if either the Pharisees did then so mean, or any shall now gather upon their words, that there is a great master devil that ruleth and commandeth the rest, it was in them but a pharisaical dream, and in the other a popish collection. We deny not, but that there may be degrees in power and angelical gifts both among the good and bad angels, as there shall be degrees in glory among the Saints: yet the Saints shall not be princes one over the other, no more are the angels now. Thirdly, mark the answer of our Savior in that place, If Satan cast out Satan, Mark. 3. Here Satan is made a common name to all evil spirits. But Apocalypse. 12. where mention is made of the devil and his angels, the text saith, The great dragon, the old serpent, called the Devil and Sathanas, verse. 9. Here the name Sathanas, is given to the prince of the devils: so there is not one Sathanas, but many. And where our Savior calleth the devil the prince of the world, John 14. S. Paul calleth them all principalities and powers, worldly governors, and princes of the darkness of this world, Ephes. 6.12. So there is not one prince of the devils, but they are all princes. Thus Augustine expoundeth that place, Draco pugnauit & angeli eius: id est, diabolus & homines voluntati eius obtemperantes: The dragon fought and his angels, that is, wicked men obeying his will, Apocalypse. Hom. 9. So by Augustine's sentence the devils are not subjects to the great devil, but they are all princes and commanders of wicked men.
THE SECOND QUESTION OF THE MINIsterie and function of Angels.
THis question hath two parts: first, of the external ministry of angels, in the protection, and defense of the Church. Secondly, of their spiritual office about the prayers of God's servants.
THE FIRST PART CONCERNING the defense and protection of Angels.
The Papists.
MIchael (say they) is the protector and keeper of the whole Church of Christ, [error 3] Dan. 10.21. And as earthly kingdoms have their special angels for their protectors, so also have particular Churches, Dan. 10. Rhemist. annot. 1. Apocal. sect. 9.
The Protestants.
THE whole Church hath Christ himself, who is the true Michael, for her protector and defender: And so is that place in Daniel to be understood. Augustine also by Michael understandeth Christ: the name also signifieth as much: Michael, that is, one like unto God: see more of this before: Controv. 4. quaest. 1. The scripture saith. All power is given to Christ, and he is with his Church to the end of the world: Math. 28.18.20. He therefore is the chief patron and protector of his Church.
Secondly, It cannot be proved out of scripture, that kingdoms have their special Angels protectors, for Dan. 10. The Princes of the Persians and Grecians, were not Angels but earthly princes: for Angels do not resist Christ and his Angels defenders of the Church, as the Prince of Percia did▪ ver. 13 Fulk. ibid. but all the Angels of heaven are ready to serve the Lord at his pleasure, for the defense of his Church, without any limitation of place, Zachar. 1.10. These are they whom the Lord hath sent, to go through the world. The Angels execute their message, not in several countries but in the whole world.
The Papist.
[error 4] EVerie one hath from his nativity an Angel for his custody and patronage against the wicked, before the face of God. Gen. 48.16. Jacob saith, The Angel that hath kept me from my youth up. Acts 12.15. It is his Angel. Rhemist. ibid. Math. 18.10. Their Angels behold the face of my Father. Ergo, every man hath his proper Angel.
Answ. 1. Jacob by the Angel understandeth Christ, to whom it is proper to bless God's children: the Angel bless thy children saith he, Gen. 48.16. This Angel appeared unto him in Bethel, and is called the God of Bethel. Gen. 31.13. with this Angel Jacob wrestled, 32. which was God, as it appeareth by the name of Jacob, he is called Israel, because he had prevailed with God, and the place is called Peniel, I have seen God face to face: Other proper Angel Jacob had none, for all the Angels of God were appointed for his defense. Gen. 32.1. He met an host of God's Angels, and accordingly called the place Mahanaim.
2. Neither of the other places prove that men have proper Angels. Math. 18. The children of God are said to have their Angels: not theirs, as every man his proper Angel, but theirs in common, because they were deputed for their defense. Act. 12. Peter at that time was delivered by one Angel, but it followeth not, that therefore he was his proper Angel.
The Protestants.
WE nothing doubt of the protection of God's Angels: but that everyone hath a proper Angel appointed for his protection from his nativity, out of scripture it is not proved.
1. Sometime one Angel hath the charge of a multitude. Exod. 23.20. The Lord saith to all the people of Israel, I send mine Angel before thee, to keep thee in thy way.
2. Sometime many Angels are ready for the defense of one man: Gen. 32.1. an host of Angels met Jacob. Psa. 91.11. He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee all in thy ways: Ergo, every man hath not his particular proper Angel.
3 Luke 16.22. The poor man is said, being dead, to be carried not by one Angel, but by the Angels, into the bosom of Abraham. But if he had one Angel appointed to be the president of his life from his nativity, it had been also parte of that Angels charge, to have conveyed his soul into Heaven. So Augustine writeth: Si been vixerimus, vbi a carnis vinculo anima liberata fuerit, mox in occursum nostrum Angelorum chorus occurret. De salutarib. document. cap. 39. If we lived well here, when as the soul is gone from the body, the holy company of the Angels are ready to meet us, he saith not one Angel, but the whole chore or company.
THE SECOND PARTE, WHAT OFFICE the Angels have about our prayers.
The Papists.
THeir opinion is, that the Angels do offer up our prayers unto God. And they would prove it by that place Apocalypse. 8.2. An Angel stood by the Altar, with a golden censer, and much incense was given unto him to offer with the prayers of the saints. Rhemist. in hunc locum.
Ans. Augustine upon this place saith, that this Angel is Christ, Thuribulum aureum est corpus eius sanctum, the golden censer is his body, ex quo Deus • dorem suauitatis accepit, out of the which God smelt a sweet savor. Homil. in Apocalyp. 6. And in another place he saith, Vt altare sanctificat dona, sic Christus preces nostras, as the altar sanctifieth the gift, so Christ doth our prayers▪ quaest. in Evangel. 34. First therefore this place is understood of Christ, not of any Angel.
2. If this place might be understood of Angels, that they have some ministry about our prayers, it maketh nothing notwithstanding for popish invocation of Angels: for the Angel here commendeth not the prayers of the Saints by his merit, but by the much incense given unto him, to ad to the prayers of the Saints to make them acceptable, which is the sweet smell and savor of the precious d • ath and merits of Christ. Fulk. in hunc locum. Augustine indeed sometime ascribeth such an office unto the Angels to carry up our prayers to Heaven, as their charge is to carry up our souls: not as mediators or intercessors, but as the Lord's messengers and agents here upon earth, to report unto him our affairs: dicuntur Angeli preces nostras, & vota Deo offerre, non vt deum doceant, qui omnia antequam fiant, nouit, sed vt super his dei voluntatem consulant. The Angels are said to offer up our prayers and vows unto God, not to inform or instruct the Lord, but only to consult and know his pleasure: tom. 9. de dilection. Cap. 3. & in Psalm. 74. for the Angels have two offices, the one, to execute the commandment of God in the world, and to attend upon him to receive their charge, Math. 18.10. the other, to return unto God as faithful messengers the success of their business in the world. Zechar. 1.10. Now whether the Angels be appointed of God to report unto him our sayings and doings, as other affairs of our life, the scripture nowhere evidently showeth. Neither, if it were granted, would it anything help their popish invocation of Angels.
Rhemist. allege Tob. 12.12. to prove the offering of our prayers by Angels. Answer, It is neither canonical Scripture, nor agreeable unto it: Fulk. annot. Coloss. 2. sect. 3.
The Protestants.
THe scripture always maketh Christ our only Mediator, neither Angels nor Saints, by whom our prayers and all other spiritual sacrifices are offered unto God. Fulk ibid.
1 Hebrew. 13.15. Let us by him offer the sacrifice of praise always to God. 1. Peter. 2.5. You are an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ. Ergo, Christ Jesus is our only Mediator.
Secondly, Galatian. 3.19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. Ergo, the Angels are one office, and the Mediator another. Augustine saith: Quod non aliquem ex Angels dicit Mediatorem, sed ipsum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum habes alio loco: vnus (inquit) Deus, & vnus mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus Jesus. That the Apostle calleth not any of the Angels, but only Jesus Christ our Lord, Mediator, we have in another place: There is one God, saith he, and one Mediator of God and man, the Man Jesus Christ.
AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of this question, whether Angels or Saints know our hearts.
The Papists.
THe Angels and other Celestial spirits do know our hearts and inward repentance: And between the Angels and the blessed souls of Saints, there is no difference in this case, the one being as highly exalted, and near God, as the other, in whom and by whom only they see and know our affairs. Luke 15.10. There is joy in heaven▪ in the presence of the Angels over one sinner that repenteth. Ergo, they know our repentance. Rhemist. Lu. 15. Sect. 2.
Ans. 1 Our hearts and inward repentance are not known to the Angels, but by the fruits, and true effects thereof.
2 Although the elect, after the resurrection shall be like in glory to the Angels, yet it followeth not, that they shall be like in all things, much less that their souls now in heaven, be in all things like unto the Angels, whose presence and Ministry God useth in the preservation of his chosen.
3 That all things done in the world may be seen in God, as in a glass, is but a profane speculation, and the devise of an idle brain. Fulk. ibid.
Argum. 2 Abraham had knowledge of things in earth, which were not in his time, as that they had Moses and the Prophets books, which he never saw. Luk. 16. ver. 29. Rhemist.
Answer: First, In this narration many things are spoken parabolically, out of the which we must not ground any doctrine not taught else where in scripture: for you may as well say that souls have fingers and tongues, and that elemental water will quench hell fire, as that Abraham knew what books were written after his death.
Secondly, Albeit that the doctrine of the Church comprehended in the scriptures, might be revealed to Abraham after his death, yet it followeth not, that he knew all things, as you affirm the saints do, by beholding the Majesty of God. Fulk. annot. ibid.
The saints therefore in heaven know so much as the Lord thinketh good to reveal unto them, they know not all things.
The Protestants.
WE deny not, but that as Prophets and holy men in this life, may know many secret things revealed unto them by the spirit of God, as Peter found out the secret fraud of Ananias, & Sapphirae: Eliseus being absent found out Gehazi his corruption: yea, he could tell what was done in the King of Syria his chamber: so the Lord may reveal unto the saints in heaven at his pleasure, some things done upon earth. But that they received any such gift of God, to know all things done upon earth, it is a great untruth, and clean contrary to the scriptures.
1. Solomon saith in his prayer unto God: Hear thou in heaven, in thy dwelling place, and give unto every man according to his ways, as thou knowest his heart, for thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1. King. 8.39. Out of this place we thus reason, he only knoweth the heart, that is the Judge of all men, and a rewarder of them according to their ways: But the Lord only is judge. Ergo. Again, the words themselves be plain, that God only knoweth the heart: so that what knowledge of secrets the Saints have, it is by revelation, not by searching the heart.
Again S. Paul saith: No man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him: so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God. 1. Corinth. 1.11. the Rhemist. answer that no man knoweth the secrets of the heart naturally, but by extraordinary gift he may, as the Prophets did. Ans. No man ever had or can have a general gift to know the heart, but when God seeth it good to reveal it: for otherwise the comparison holdeth not: The spirit of God only knoweth the things of God: which also is given to men to know, but not by receiving any gift, to search and look into the nature and heart as it were of God (for then should they know all the secrets of God, which never any did:) but only by revelation of the spirit, which openeth God's secrets unto them, so far as it is convenient and needful.
Even after the same manner the spirit of God may reveal the secrets of the heart of man, not by giving them a general gift them selves to look into the heart, as into a glass, but by revealing such things, when the Lord seeth it expedient.
Neither had the prophets an inherent gift and dwelling in them, to know secrets, but the word of God was inspired into them at times, as they had need, as we see in Nathan 2. Sam. 7.3.4. in Elisha. 2. King. 2.15. in Isaiah. 2. Kin. 20.4. And though Paul was taken up into heaven, and saw many secrets, yet he knew not all: for thus he saith of him self, If I knew all secretes: 1. Corinth. 13.2. Ergo, no man ever received this gift, to search the heart: but it is proper unto God, who will not give his honor to another.
2. Augustine saith, Nescire mortuos quid hic agatur dum hic agitur : that the dead know not what is done here, while it is in doing. But they understand either by relation of those that depart this world, or else by the Angels: Non quidem omnia, sed quae sinuntur indicare: sicut Prophetae, nec hic omnia cognoscebant. sed quae illis essereuelanda dei prouidentia iudicarat. de cura pro mortuis. cap. 15. Neither do they know all things, but what God suffereth to be known, as neither did the Prophets know all things while they lived, but what God in his divine providence thought good to reveal unto them. I note out of this saying of Augustine, three things.
FIRST, What great uncertainty of opinion here is: Howe the dead should come by the knowledge of human affairs, the Papists think they have it by God's gift: otherwhile they say, they see all things in God, as in a clear glass. Augustine saith, they know them by the Angels, or by men newly departed this life: so that it appeareth to be but a mere conceit and imagination, that they have any such knowledge, whereof there is no surer ground. Secondly, Augustine saith, they know not things presently done, but afterward, contrary to the Papists. Thirdly, they know not all things, as the Prophets also did not, but what the Lord revealeth unto them: wherein also he is contrary to our adversaries.
THE THIRD QUESTION CONCERNING THE worship of Angels, first in general, then in particular, of invocation.
The Papists.
THey say that the divine honor and adoration due unto God alone, is not to be given to Angels: But there is a religious reverence, honor and adoration, which is not to be denied to Angels and Saints, Rhemist. annot. Apocalypse. 19. sect. 4.
1 Joshua fell down before the Angel and worshipped, Joshua 5. Rhemist.
Ans. He worshipped not an Angel, but the Lord Christ himself the captain of the Lord's army: for it was a divine worship: He is bid to put off his shoes, as Moses was, when God appeared out of the fiery bush, Exod. 3. But a divine worship (by your own confession) is due only to God, Fulk. annot. Coloss. 2.3.
2. 1. Timoth. 2.21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and his elect Angels, that thou observe these things: Ergo, Angels may be adored and reverenced, Rhemist.
Ans. Saint Paul maketh here the Angels witnesses of his weighty charge: so Moses calleth heaven and earth to witness, Deut. 30.19. may we therefore conclude, that he yielded any religious worship to heaven and earth? Fulk. ibid.
The Protestants.
AS for due reverence, which is of love, not of any service, there is no question, but we ought to yield it unto the Angels. But all religious service or worship is due only to God, and whosoever man or Angel requireth, or receiveth any religious worship or service, usurpeth that which is due unto God, Fulk. Apocal. 19. sect. 4.
1 Apocal. 19.10. and 22.9. John fell down to worship the Angel: but the Angel suffered him not: See thou do it not, (saith he) for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, worship God: Ergo, Angels are not to be adored with any religious worship.
Rhemist. First, he forbiddeth him only to worship him with divine adoration.
Ans. The words are general: he saith not worship God, with this kind of service: but worship God.
Rhemist. Secondly, you say, that John so worthy an Apostle was not ignorant of that point, that Angels were not to be worshipped as God: we may reply also, that if John had known that this other kind of service was unlawful, he would not have done it.
Ans. John sinned not of ignorance, but of forgetfulness, in this ecstacy of his mind, while he beheld the glory of the Angel, as likewise through his frailenes and forgetfulness he committeth the like again, cap. 22. which John would not have done, being once before admonished, had he not presently forgotten himself: But the other error of worshipping the creature for the Creator, was too gross an error for the Apostle.
Rhemist. Thirdly, he was deceived in the person, taking the Angel for Christ, and therefore was not culpable at all in this fact, in giving divine honor to the Angel, for he sinned only materially, not formally.
Ans. First, John was not ignorant, that he was an Angel, and not Christ, for he saith, he was one of the seven Angels that had the seven vials. Secondly, though he sinned of ignorance, yet was it a sin: for the Prophet, which believed the old Prophet, sinned grievously, as it appeared by his punishment, though he did it ignorantly, 1. King. 13. Wherefore it is a gross error of your Schoolmen, that say, a man sinneth not, if he worship the devil in the shape of an Angel ignorantly.
Rhemist. Fourthly, the Angel would not receive this worship at John's hand, whom he knew to be in great favor with God, and greater then some Angel.
Ans. First, though hereafter the childrē of God shall be made equal to the Angels in glory, yet in this mortal life they must needs be inferior, seeing Christ himself, in respect of his passion, was inferior to the Angels, Heb. 2.9. Secondly, the Angel would not have taken this homage at any other man's hands, beside John: for he giveth a reason, that he is not only his fellow servant, but also of his brethren. So for all their shifts and cavils, we strongly conclude by this example, that no religious honor ought to be given to Angels.
2 Honoramus Angelos, charitate non seruitute (saith Augustine) nec eis templa construimus: We honor Angels with the duty of love, not of service, neither do we build temples unto them. Quod ergo colit summus Angelus, id colendum etiam est ab homine vltimo. That therefore which is worshipped of the highest Angel, the man of lowest degree ought also to worship, De vera religion. cap. 55. Ergo, no worship due unto Angels, but all unto God.
THE SECOND PART OF THE INVOcation of Angels.
The Papists.
THey hold, that it is lawful to direct our prayers unto Angels, Rhemist. Coloss. 2. sect. 3. Yea, and because they pray for us, and deal with God to procure mercy for us, they may justly be called our advocates.
Angels are deputed for our protection (which is nothing but aduocation) Dan. 10.23. Math. 18.10. Rhemist. annot. 1. John 2. sect. 5.
Ans. First, the argument followeth not: for the Angels at the appointment of God, may serve for our protection and defense, though they be not advocates for us, to obtain remission of our sins. Secondly, the places alleged prove no such aduocation of Angels, but only defense and protection. Dan. 10.23. The Angel was ready at the first prayers of Daniel, but he was letted a while. This proveth, that angels may know our prayers when it pleaseth God, and be ministers of his help unto us, which we deny not: not that they are our advocates.
The Protestants.
THat angels are not to be worshipped, nor invocated, as mediators, intercessors, or advocates, the scripture speaketh evidently.
1 Coloss. 2.18. Let no man beguile you in the humbleness and worshipping of Angels: Ergo, not lawful to pray unto them, or to worship them.
Rhemist. The Apostle speaketh here against the wicked doctrine of Simon Magus, that affirmed that the angels both ill and good, were mediators for us unto God, and against the superstition of the Jews, that worshipped the angels by whom the law was given.
Ans. The Apostle condemneth both these superstitions, as likewise the popish invocation of angels: because all will-worship is forbidden, which is not after the prescript of God's word, Coloss. 2.23. Fulk. in hunc locum.
2 If any man sin, (saith the Apostle) we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the Just, he is the propitiation for our sins, John 2.2. Ergo, Christ only is our advocate.
Rhemist. Christ is our advocate in the highest degree, because by himself, and his own merits, without the assistance of any other, he obtaineth pardon for us. The other, as angels and Saints are as secondary intercessors, that obtain not anything by their own merits, but only through Christ.
Ans. First, he only and properly is an advocate that can plead the justice of his clients cause, which everyone that prayeth for us cannot do: for though the angels and Saints departed should pray for us (which we know not by the scriptures) as our brethren upon earth do, yet should they not be mediators and advocates, but petitioners and intreators for us, Fulk. ibid.
Secondly, we gather many strong arguments out of this place, for the sole sufficient aduocation of Christ. First, the Son is the best and only sufficient advocate with the father, therefore where we may have free and bold access to the Son, Heb. 4.16. what need have we of the servants help? 2. He is the only advocate that is just and righteous before God: so only is Christ, the angels are imperfect in his sight, Job. 4.18. Ergo. Thirdly, he must be our advocate that is also the propitiation for our sins, Ergo, only Christ.
Augustine saith, Dicitis, angelos nos colimus: vtinam illos coleretis, facile ab illis disceretis, illos non colere: But ye will say, ye worship not images but Angels: I would you did truly worship and reverence them: for you should soon learn of the Angels, not to worship the Angels, in Psal. 96.
THE NINTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING SAINTS DEPARTED.
T His Controuersie hath two parts: first, of those that being departed suffer some punishment after this life. Secondly, of those that are straight received to joy in heaven. The first part hath two questions: first, of the place of darkness, where the faithful remained till the coming of Christ, as the Papists imagine. Secondly, of Purgatory.
THE FIRST QUESTION, OF LIMBVS PATRVM, where the Patriarchs were imagined to be.
The Papists.
THey have devised and imagined in their foolish conceit four infernal and subterrestrial places: Hell, Purgatory, Limbus infantium, where children remain dying without baptism, and Limbus Patrum, where the Fathers were before Christ's coming. These places they distinguish three ways: first by the situation: Hell is lowest, Purgatory is next, Limbus infantium in the third place, Limbus Patrum uppermost. Secondly, they differ in measure of punishment, some of them have poenam damni, and poenam sensus, a double punishment, both of loss, in that they are excluded heaven, and of pain also, as Hell, and Purgatory: the other two Limbi, are but dungeons of darkness only, where they suffer no other smart or pain, but are only absent from God. Thirdly, they differ in time and continuance, say they, Hell and the dungeon of children shall abide forever: but Purgatory and the dungeon of the fathers are temporal: the one, that is, Limbus Patrum is many years ago dissolved: and Purgatory also shall cease, say they, at the coming of Christ, Ballarm. de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6.
This then is their opinion, that the Patriarchs and Prophets before Christ's coming were not in heaven, but were kept in an infernal place of darkness, yet without pain, and were delivered by Christ's descending into hell, Bellarm. de Christi anima. lib. 4. cap. 11. Rhemist. Heb. 9.8.
Argum. First, Heb. 11.40. God providing a better thing for us, that they without us should not be perfect: That is, (say the Rhemists ) the Fathers of the law could not be admitted to the joys of heaven, till the Apostles and other of the new law, were associate with them, and a way made into heaven by the death and ascension of Christ, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, by this reason the Patriarchs could not enter into heaven before the death of the Apostles, if there were no entrance found, unless they were associate with them. Secondly, if the way were not opened before Christ's ascension, then the Patriarchs could not ascend before: where were they then all those 40. days? for they were delivered out of Limbus Patrum before Christ's resurrection. Thirdly, there is therefore no such meaning of this place: but it is to be understood of the resurrection, when as all the elect shall be consummate together, and enter body and soul into heaven. Fulk.
2 Zachar. 9.11. I have loosed thy prisoners out of the pit, where there is no water; That is out of Limbus Patrum, Bellarm. de Christi anima. lib. 4. cap. 11.
Ans. Augustine giveth a clean contrary sense of the place, by the pit without water he understandeth, Humanae miseriae siccam profunditatem & sterilem, vbi non sunt fluenta iustitiae, sed iniquitatis lutum: The dry and barren dungeon of human misery, where there are no springs of justice, but the puddle and mire of iniquity: That is, the Prophet speaketh of the deliverance of the people from their cruel and unjust bondage and captivity.
3 1. Pet. 3.19. In the which spirit he also went and preached unto the spirits that were in prison, which sometime had been disobedient in the days of Noah. This place proveth evidently (saith Bellarm. ) that Christ descended into hell, and delivered the fathers from thence, De Christi anima. lib. 4.13.
Ans. The place can have no such meaning: First, by the spirit here the human soul of Christ cannot be understood, but is divine power: for he was not quickened or restored to life by his human soul, but by his divine power his soul was joined again to his body. Augustine also giveth another reason, why he cannot be said to be quickened or made alive in spirit, that is, in his soul: for then he must have died before in soul. But, Mors animae peccatum est, à quo ill immunis fuit: But the death of the soul is sin, from the which Christ was free.
2 The Apostle speaketh only of those which were incredulous and disobedient, not of the faithful, such as the Patriarchs were and Prophets. Yea (saith Bellarm. ) they might be unbelievers at the first, but after repented before they died.
Ans. Then the Apostles comparison could not hold, if any were saved without the Ark: for as then eight persons only were saved, all without the Ark perished: so now without baptism and faith of the Church (for by baptism he understandeth not the washing of water, but the inward grace of the spirit) none can be saved. If then any were saved out of the Ark, there may now also be salvation out of the Church. Augustine also saith, Ii modo, qui non crediderunt Euangelio illis intelligantur esse similes, qui tunc non crediderunt, cum fabricaretur arca. They which now believe not the Gospel, are like to them which believed not then while the Ark was in making. And they which do now believe and are baptized, are like to those which then were saved in the Ark. Augustine thinketh therefore, that they were incredulous persons, and utterly perished both body and soul: And so is our opinion.
3 The text saith not, he went and delivered, but went and preached: for Augustine calleth it an absurd thing to think, that the Gospel was preached to them that were dead, which in their life time were incredulous: for if the Gospel be preached in Hell (saith he) it would follow that it is not necessary it should be preached here in the world, if men when they are dead, may hear it, and be converted. And again, it would ensue (saith he) that there should be a Church in hell: for where the word is preached, there is a Church. Wherefore he concludeth, that it must needs be understood of Noah his preaching in the spirit and power of Christ: Arcae fabricatio, praedicatio quaedam fuit. The building of the Ark was a kind of preaching, Epistol. 99. So also he expoundeth that 1. Pet. 4.6. The Gospel was preached to the dead: Ex circumstantia loci apparet, eum intelligere eos, qui nunc mortui sunt, sed olim in vita Euangelium audiuerunt. Commentar▪ in epistol. ad Roman.
4 The text is not, that were in prison, but doth better bear this sense, that are: So the Apostles meaning is this, that they which were incredulous and disobedient in time past, when Noah in the spirit of Christ, or Christ by his spirit in Noah preached to the world, were then destroyed in the flood, & now for their increduliti • are punished in the prison of hell.
The Protestants.
THat the holy Patriarchs, Fathers and Prophets died in the same faith before the coming of Christ, which all true Christians do now hold, and were presently received into the joys of heaven, and not kept in any infernal place or dungeon of darkness: thus it is proved.
1 They had all faith, and believed in Christ: yea, the same faith that is now preached: as it is defined by the Apostle, Heb. 11.1. They also by this faith obtained remission of sins, Rom. 4.7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, as it is alleged out of the Psalm: Ergo, they were blessed: but out of the kingdom of God there was no blessedness to be found: therefore they also went to heaven.
2 If the heavens were not opened before Christ's ascension, as the Rhemists affirm: then none went to heaven before Christ ascended. But that is false: Enoch and Elias by their own confession were taken up into Paradise: so was the soul of the thief upon the Cross. But Paradise is heaven, yea the third and the highest heaven, as S. Paul calleth it, 2. Corinth. 12.4. And so Augustine expoundeth that place, Voluit Deus Apostolo demonstrare vitam, in qua post hanc vitam viuendum est in aeternū. The Lord would show unto the Apostle that life, wherein, after this life, we shall live and remain forever: De Gene. lib. 12.28. These three therefore went to Paradise, which is no infernal or place of darkness, but a Celestial habitation of joy, light, and felicity: They were not then in Limbo Patrum, in the dungeon of the Fathers. Wherefore we conclude, there was access to heaven before the ascension of Christ.
3 The Fathers and Patriarchs, before Christ's coming, were in Abraham's bosom: but that was no infernal place or prison, such as they imagine Limbus Patrum to be. Augustine proveth, that it could not be membrum, or pars inferorum, a member or part of Hell, or any infernal▪ place, as the Jesuits hold: First, the text saith, there is magnum chaos, a great gulf, a great distance between, Luk. 16.26. and verse. 23. The rich man saw Abraham a far off: wherefore it is not like, that both those places should be infernal. Secondly, Abraham's bosom, was quietis habitatio, & faelicitatis sinus, a place of rest and bliss: but so is not any infernal place, where there is horror, and darkness. Thirdly, the place where the rich man was, is called Hell, or infernal: there is no such thing said of Lazarus, that he was in any lower place: but above in some high and far distant place: for the rich man is said to lift up his eyes. Augustine then concludeth: Ne ipsos quidem inferos vspiam scripturarum locis in bono appellatos reperire potui. Epistol. 99. I do not find that this word infernal, is taken anywhere in the scriptures in the good part. And therefore the bosom of Abraham, being a place of rest, saith he, cannot be any infernal place.
AN APPENDIX OR APPERTINANCE OF THIS question, concerning the apparition of Samuel.
THey hold opinion, that it was the very soul of Samuel that appeared at the [error 10] witches house at Endor unto Saul: and use it as an argument, to prove that the souls of the Patriarchs were not in heaven, but in some infernal place, before Christ's coming, because Samuel ascended out of the earth, Bellarm. De Christ. anim. lib. 411.
Argum. 1. Because he that appeared to Saul, is called Samuel in the text. Augustine answereth: that the Images of things, are called by the names of the things themselves: as Genes. 41. Pharaoh said, he saw ears of corn, and fat and lean kine in his dream, when they were but the images of such things: So the devil because he appeared in the shape of Samuel, Samuel himself is said to be seen: Ad Simplicianum lib. 2. quaest. 3.
Argum. 2. Ecclesiastic. 46: It is set down as a commendation of Samuel, that he prophesied being dead, Ergo, it was Samuel indeed, Bellarm. De Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6.
Augustine answereth, that this book was not received into the Canon of the scriptures: It is not Canonical, De cura pro mortuis. cap. 15.
Arg. 3. He telleth Saul things to come, as how the next day he should be overcome, and slain. But the devil knoweth not things to come, Bellar. ibid.
Augustine answereth, Facile est & non incongruum: It is an easy matter with God, and not unlikely, that some things should be revealed to evil spirits, for the greater punishment of the wicked: for otherwise we might marvel: Quomodo daemones agnouerint Christum, quem Iudaei non agnoscebant: How the devils knew Christ, whom the Jews did not acknowledge: Ad Simplician. lib. 2. quaest. 3.
THat it was not the soul of Samuel which appeared, who was now at rest; but the devil in the likeness of Samuel, who also can transform himself into an Angel of light: Augustine proveth by these four arguments.
Argum. 1. Because the Witch or Pythonist used enchantments, unto the which the soul of so holy a prophet was not subject, Daemoniacis incantationibus vti videtur. De mirabilib. scriptur. 2. cap. 11. Bellarmine answereth: that Samuel prevented her enchantment, and came up voluntarily.
Ans. The text is contrary, verse. 11. for the woman first asketh Saul, whom she should bring up, that is, by her charms and incantations: and he said, bring me up Samuel.
Argum. 2. Quomodo Saul &c. How could Saul obtain to hear a Prophet speak from the dead, whom God vouchsafed not to answer by Prophets alive? The text is, that God gave him no answer neither by Prophets, nor by dreams, therefore I have called for thee, verse. 15. Ergo, it was not Samuel, for then God should have given him answer by Prophets.
Argum. 3. If it had been Samuel, he would not have told a lie unto Saul, saying, tomorrow thou shalt be with me: Magno quippe interuallo separari bonos à malis legimus: for we read that the good are separated from the bad by a great distance after this life, as it appeareth in the story of Dives and Lazarus. August. ad Simplician. ibid.
Bellarm. He saith as much, as you shall be dead: noting the general condition, not the particular state of the dead.
Ans. This phrase in scripture importeth, and implieth also the particular state of those that are departed, as 2. Sam. 12.23. David saith of his child, I shall go to him, he shall not come to me: And Luk. 23.43. Christ saith, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: In both places it signifieth to be in rest and joy, in the same place, where they are, with whom they are said, they shall be: Ergo, it must be so taken here.
Argum. 4. If it had been Samuel: Vtique vir iustus non permisisset se adorari, The just man would not have suffered himself to be adored and worshipped: as the devil doth take it at Saul's hands, to be worshipped of him. For the text saith, he inclined his face toward the ground, and bowed himself, or worshipped: August. quaest. ex veteri. testam. 27.
THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERNING Purgatory.
THe question hath three parts: first, whether there be any Purgatory for souls to be purged & cleansed in after this life. Secondly, of other circumstances and matters that do belong thereunto. Thirdly, of prayer for the dead.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THERE BE any Purgatory after this life.
THere is (they say) a certain infernal place in the earth, called Purgatory, in the which, as in a prison house, the souls which were not fully purged in this life, are there cleansed and purged by fire, before they can be received into heaven: Bellarm. de Purgator. lib. 1.1. lib. 2.6. Rhemist. Matth. 12. sect. 6.
Argum. 1. Zachar. 9.11. Thou hast loosed thy prisoners out of the pit where was no water. Psalm. 66.12. We went through fire and water. These and such like places the Jesuit understandeth of Purgatory, Lib. 1. de Purgator. cap. 3.
Ans. First, the Jesuit brought this place before, to prove that there was Limbus Patrum, and now he maketh it serve for Purgatory: thus they can make the scripture to speak what they list themselves. But Purgatory and Limbus Patrum, are two diverse, yea and contrary things: for the Limbus was only for those that lived before Christ: Purgatory began since: the Limbus was void of pain and punishment, so is not Purgatory: wherefore if the Lake or pit in Zechariah signify Purgatory, it maketh nothing for Limbus: and if it serve for Limbus, then they miss of a place for Purgatory. But indeed it signifieth no such thing: but is taken only in that place for the affliction and misery of this life, as we shown out of Augustine. And so doth he also expound such and the like places out of the Psalms: as Psalm. 86.13. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. Quid (saith he) est lacus infimus, nisi profundissima miseria, qua non sit profundior? What else (saith he) is the lowest pit or grave, but the lowest degree of misery, then the which there can be no greater?
Argum. 2. Luk. 8.55. Her spirit came again and she arose. Christ raised the rulers daughter to life. This evidently showeth that there is a third place beside Heaven and Hell: for the souls that are there cannot return again, Rhemist.
Ans. Surely a goodly argument, the spirits of Lazarus and of the Maid returned: Ergo, there is a third place: and why may you not think, that their souls were, whereas the souls of other righteous are? And why may not the Lord bring at his pleasure, if it pleaseth him, the souls at rest into their bodies again? Fulk. 8. sect. 5.
Argum. 3. Of all other they most insult, and bear themselves bold upon that place of Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 3. which being rightly understood, doth not help them anything at all: verse. 13. The fire shall try every man's work. verse. 15. if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be safe himself, yet as it were through the fire. Bellarm. Rhemist. by fire here understand the flames of Purgatory; by wood, stubble, straw; venial sins, which must be purged by that fire, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 3. sect. 3.
Ans. First, by the precious matter here, as of gold, silver, are not the works of charity understood, but the preaching of sound doctrine: by straw, and stubble, and wood, and other combustible matter, the affectation of eloquence, and corrupt teaching of the truth, yet holding the foundation: not venial sins, as the Rhemists affirm: and this Bellarmine also granteth.
Secondly, fire is here taken allegorically, as the rest of the words are of gold, silver, stubble: neither can it be taken for their Purgatory fire; because it trieth the works only, not the persons, and all must be tried by this fire, as well those that build gold and silver, as the other: but all shall not pass through Purgatory, by their own confession. They are driven to this shift, to grant, that verse. 13. the fire is taken in one sense, namely, for the sentence and judgment of God, and verse. 15. in another, that is, for the flames of Purgatory. But who seeth not how absurd a thing this is, that in an allegory the same word, and in the same place, should be so diversely taken?
Thirdly, The day shall reveal it, that is, saith Bellarmine, the day of the Lord at the coming of Christ: the Rhemists understand the particular day of every man's death; so well they agree together. But it is apparent, that this is the meaning, that the day, that is, the time shall declare it: for God hath appointed a time to examine every man's doctrine by fire: which is nothing else but the judgment of God by the fire of his word, whereby every man, in the day of his calling and conversion, shall know whether he hath preached aright or not: Fulk.
THat there is no such place of Purgatory after this life, but that here only is the place of repentance, and to be reconciled unto God: and that the souls departed are presently either received up to heaven, or thrust down to hell: thus it is proved out of the scriptures.
Argum. 1. The scripture maketh but two kinds of works, either good or evil, Ecclesiastes 12.14. But two sorts of men, he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. Mark. 16.16. But two places, heaven and hell: Math. 25. Christ hath but two flocks, one of sheep at the right hand, another of goats at the left: and he saith to the one, Come ye blessed: to the other, Go ye cursed. There are but two sorts of men, therefore but two places: Ergo, no Purgatory.
Bellarm. There shall be indeed at the coming of Christ but two places, heaven and hell: Purgatory shall have an end.
Ans. First, you say yourselves that there shall be two infernal places forever, Hell for the wicked, and a Limbus for infants that die unbaptized, and heaven that maketh three, and now you say there shall be but two. Secondly, there are but two places now, because there are but two sorts of men, for the believers are already passed frō death to life, John 5.24. The unbelievers are already condemned, John 3.18. Thirdly, Augustine consenteth with us, Non est vlli vllus medius locus, vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo, qui non est cum Christo: There is no middle or third place, but he must needs be with the devil, that is not with Christ. De peccator. remiss. & merit. lib. 1. cap. 28. And again, Tertium locum penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scriptures sanctis inuenimus: The third place beside heaven and hell, we are utterly ignorant of, nay we find not in scripture that there is any.
Arg. 2. S. Paul saith, that every man shall receive the works of his body, according to that which he hath done either good or evil, 2. Cor. 5.10. Therefore there is no place to cleanse and purge the souls of men after this life: for then they should not receive according to the works done in their flesh.
Bellarmine saith, that even they whose sins are remitted after death, do receive nothing but that which was done in the flesh, for they deserved in their life time to be helped after death.
Ans. First, as for desert, we will show elsewhere, that it hath no place before God neither in this life, nor the life to come: for the scripture saith, Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sin: not who deserveth remission of sins, Rom. 4.6. Secondly, this devised and frivolous distinction, doth not stand with the Apostles meaning: for he speaketh of things actually done in the flesh, not deserved to be done, and of the works of the body, not of the soul, & of things perfectly done, not begun only or in choate: and he useth it as a reason to persuade men, even while they live, to be accepted of God, verse. 9.11. But if there might be any such help after death, there needeth no such hast presently to be converted unto God.
Argum. 3. Apocal. 14.13. Blessed are the dead from henceforth that die in the Lord, for they rest from their labors: Ergo, there is no Purgatory: for all the godly departed are at rest.
Bellarm. First, it is not meant of all the godly, but only of Martyrs, which die for the name of Christ.
Ans. As to live in Christ Jesus, is a phrase of scripture, & signifieth to live godly in Christ, 2. Timot. 3.12. so to die in the Lord, signifieth to die in the faith of Christ, 1. Thessal. 4.16. Therefore this place is understood of all the godly.
Bellar. 2. This word ( amodo ) from henceforth, is not to be understood straight after their death, but straight after the day of judgment, thē they shall be blessed.
Ans. First, by this reason none that are dead in Christ should be happy before that time. And yet by your own confession, Martyrs are straightway received up to heaven. Secondly, S. John useth this word elsewhere, to signify from this time forward, as John 1.51. Christ saith to Nathanael, From henceforth you shall see heaven open.
Rhemist. Thirdly, it may be also understood of the souls of Purgatory, that are without danger of sin and damnation, and are put in infallible security of their salvation, with unspeakable comfort.
Ans. First, so the Saints living are blessed, being as well without fear of damnation, Rom. 8.1. and are assured of their salvation, Rom. 8.16. Secondly, I pray you what rest or comfort can they have, that endure greater pain then any in this life? And how can their consciences be quieted, seeing their souls are so afflicted? for bodies they have none, whatsoever they suffer is in soul: how then can joy and pain, comfort and horror be together in the soul? Fulk. ibid.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE CIRCVMSTANces and other matters belonging to Purgatory.
[error 11] 1. THey say, it is an article of faith, to believe that there is a Purgatory, and that he, which believeth it not, is sure to go to Hell, Bellarm. lib. 1. de purgatorio. cap. 11.
WE hold, that it is not only an article belonging to the faith, but contrary to it: and that though there were a Purgatory, yet it should not be necessary to salvation to believe it. First, because the scripture hath not determined it, which containeth all things necessary to salvation. Secondly, the Greek Church holdeth it not to this day: they confess no Purgatory, though they pray for the dead: it were a hard matter therefore to pronounce them damned. Thirdly, Augustine doubted of it: He saith, that there should be some such place after death, non incredibile est, it is not incredible, & vtrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inueniri aut latere fideles potest: whether it be so or not, it may be inquired, and it may either be safely found out, or remain hid and unknown to the faithful: Enchirid. 69. Augustine saith, A faithful man may safely be ignorant of Purgatory.
[error 12] 2. THey say, they only go to Purgatory, that die in their venial and light transgressions, or which have their sins remitted, but not satisfied for the punishment, Bellarm. lib. 2. de Purgat. cap. 1.
FIrst, we deny that any sins are of their own nature venial, as they affirm; for the wages of all sin, without the mercy of God, is death, Ro. 6.23. Secondly, what equity should there be in this, that venial sins should be punished with the hellish fire of Purgatory, that exceedeth all the afflictions of this life, yea and a longer time then any man liveth upon earth; for the Pope taketh upon him to pardon for thousands of years: and yet mortal and deadly sins (as they call them) may be satisfied for here, where neither the penance can be so grievous, nor so long? Thirdly, the sin once remitted, there remaineth no punishment, Mark. 2.5. Christ saith to the sick of the palsy,
3. THe souls in Purgatory do neither sin anymore, neither can they merit. [error 13] Ecclesiastes 9.5. The dead know nothing at all, verse. 10. there is neither work, knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, Bellarm. cap. 2.
WE say, that if there were any such place as Purgatory, the souls there tormented, must needs both increase in charity and righteousness, because the more they are purged the more pure they are, and the less dross is in them: and being in unspeakable torments, they cannot choose but tremble and fear, yea and also be disquieted in their souls, as the Saints were sometime in their afflictions here upon earth: and therefore cannot be without sin: for fear hath painfulnes, as the Apostle saith, and he that feareth is not perfect in love, 1. John 4.18. Ergo, a servile or slavish fear is sin. That place alleged doth not only take away meriting or working from the dead, but all knowledge and understanding. And it is spoken in the person of the Epicure and sensual man, that thinketh that the dead know nothing.
4. THey affirm, that the souls in Purgatory are certain of their salvation in [error 14] the midst of their torments: for every soul departed, straight after death receiveth sentence of life or death, Bellarm. cap. 4.
Ans. FIrst, that every soul is judged presently after death, we grant: and it maketh strongly against your Purgatory: for the sentence given is either of death or life: and the sentence being given is accordingly executed: so 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 that they which receive sentence of life go presently to heaven, the other to hell. For to what purpose else should the sentence be given, if it be not straightwaies in force? So S. Paul saith, that they which look to be clothed with their house from heaven, shall not be left naked or unclothed, 2. Cor. 5.2, 3, 4. But if some souls ordained to life eternal, should pause a while in Purgatory, being unclothed of their flesh, they should be left altogether naked, having not yet received their clothing from heaven. Secondly, where there is security of salvation, there is the greatest comfort & joy that can be: how then can the souls in Purgatory be so grievously tormented, which cannot be else where then in their conscience? for as for the whipping, scalding, freezing of souls in Purgatory, they are but old wives fables: the joy then of the soul is in the conscience, so is the sorrow: how then can both these be matched in the soul together, to have unspeakable joy, as also to feel most horrible pain?
5 In these points already set down, our adversaries we see are bold to define certainly of Purgatory: but there are as many points, and somewhat more, which they leave in doubt and uncertain. First, where Purgatory should be: Bellarmine gesseth it is in the bowels of the earth next to hell, cap. 6. so do the Rhemists, Luk. 16. sect. 8. But they do not all agree, neither hath their Church defined it. Secondly, they cannot tell how many years Purgatory endureth, whether an hundred, or two hundred, or thousands of years. Thirdly, they cannot tell certainly whether it be material fire which burneth in Purgatory, but they say it is probable. Fourthly, neither cā they show how corporal fire should work upon the souls in Purgatory, being spiritual and incorporall, Bellarmine cap. 12. Fifthly, they are uncertain whether the devils or angels be the tormentors in Purgatory, cap. 13. Sixthly, whether the pain of Purgatory be at all time alike, or by little and little slaked toward the end, and whether it do exceed all the pains and sorrows of this life, they yet remain uncertain, and are not able to determine, Bellarm. lib. 2. de purgat. cap. 14. Let us leave them therefore with their uncertainties, and brainsicke fancies: for the vain inventions and imaginations of men have no end, but are fitly by the Prophet compared to sparkles, that leap out thick out of the fire, but are soon extinguished: Walk, saith the Prophet, in the light of your fire, and sparks that you have kindled: that is, as the sparks give but a dim light for a man to walk by, he may stumble and grope about still for all that light: even so, no marvel if the Papists do wander up and down in their imaginations, walking by the light and sparkles of their fantastical and mathematical fire of Purgatory.
THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE PRAIERS OF the living, or any other works of theirs do profit the dead.
THeir opinion is, that the prayers of the living are neither available for the Saints in heaven, for they need them not, not for the damned in hell, for they cannot be helped, but only for the souls tormented in Purgatory, who do find great ease, say they, by the prayers of the living, and therefore we ought to pray for them, Bellar. lib. 2. de purgator. cap. 15.18. Rhemist. annot. 2. Thessal. 2. sect. 19.
Argum. 1. Christ while he lived, profited the dead, for he raised to life the rulers daughter, Math. 9. the widows son, Luk. 7. and Lazarus, which were dead: therefore even so the members of Christ ought one to help another, the living the dead, Bellarm. cap. 15.
Ans. First, is not here a strong argument, think you, Christ raised Lazarus and some others from death to life, Ergo, we ought to pray for the dead? for it followeth not, that upon the miraculous works of Christ, we should build the ordinary duties of Christians: Augustine would have told you that Christ is not to be imitated in such works: Non hoc tibi dicit, non eris discipulus meus, nisi ambulaueris supra mare, aut nisi suscitaueris quatriduanum mortuum: He saith not unto thee, Thou shalt not be my disciple, unless thou walk upon the sea, & raise one that hath been dead four days: But, Learn of me: for I am humble and meek. Secondly, if prayer for the dead be unto us, as the raising of the dead was to Christ: then, as all the dead are to be prayed for, so Christ should have raised again all that went then to Purgatory, or else, by your conclusion, he failed in charity, as we do now, if we pray not for the dead, as you bear us in hand. Thirdly, though the Saints departed, and the faithful living are members of the same body, and so are bound in love one to the other, yet it followeth not, that one should pray for the other. They with us, and we with them do wish and long to see the redemption of the sons of God accomplished, Revel. 6.10.22.20. But charity bindeth us not one to pray for another, because we know not one the particular needs of another. Nay, to pray for any departed, is against the rule of charity: for love believeth all things, and hopeth all things, 1. Corinthians 13.7. We ought to hope the best of the dead, that they are at rest: but in praying for them, we presuppose they are in misery, and so need our prayers: therefore we hope not the best of them, as charity willeth us.
Argum. 2. John 5. verse. 16. The Apostle saith, There is a sin unto death, for the which a man ought not to pray: that is, deadly sin, wherein a man dieth without repentance: but for other sins not unto death, whereof men repent themselves, it is lawful to pray: Ergo, we may pray for those that are departed not in deadly sin: for this place is properly to be understood of praying or not praying for the dead: because so long as a man liveth he may be prayed for, because all sins are pardonable in this life, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, a sin unto death is not only final impenitence, but sin also against the holy Ghost, such as was the sin of Judas, and of the Pharisees. Secondly, though we should understand it of final impenitence, yet it is but a so • y argument, some of the dead ought not to be prayed for: Ergo, the rest may, Thirdly, the text cannot be understood of praying for the dead: for the text saith not, If any man see that his brother hath sinned not unto death, but, If he see him sinning: but the dead do neither sin, nor are seen to sin. Fourthly, whereas you say, that all sins are pardonable in this life, our Savior Christ saith contrary, that the sin against the holy Ghost can never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Plura. apud. Fulk. ibid.
TO pray for the dead, is a work neither pleasing before God, because he hath nowhere commanded it, nor available for them that are departed, because they have their judgment already. While we live, let us one pray for another, but when we are gone, the prayers of the living help us not.
Argum. 1. The ground of this popish opinion of prayer for the dead, is their superstitious devise of Purgatory: for none else do they hold it lawful to pray for but for the souls only in Purgatory. But there is no Purgatory, as we have shown before, after this life: our purging is only in this life: Christ hath by him self purged our sins. Hebr. 1.3. Christ his blood is the chief and only purgation of our sins: there are also other inferior and ministerial purgings, whereby that only sovereign purging is made beneficial, and applied unto us: as the inward operation and work of the spirit is compared to fire, Math. 3.11. 1. Corinth. 3.13. There is also a purging fire of affliction compared by the Prophet to fullers sope, Malachi. 3.3. There also shall be a third purging fire in the day of the Lord, 1. Pet. 3.7. when as the corruption and mortality of our bodies shall be purged away, and then shall our mortality put on immortality, 1. Corinth. 15.53. Other Purgatory after this life we acknowledge none. Seeing then that there are no souls in Purgatory, and for none else it is lawful to pray but for the souls tormented in Purgatory: it followeth, that we are to pray for none at all that are dead.
Argum. 2. No prayer is acceptable to God without faith. We must pray without wavering and doubting, James. 1.6. But so can we not pray for the dead: for we cannot tell in what case they are for whom we pray, whether they be in heaven, hell, or purgatory, and therefore we cannot assure our selves that our prayers are heard, but must needs pray with great doubting and wavering of the mind: Ergo, such prayers are in vain, James 1.7.
Argum. 3. Our prayers profit not the dead, because there is no place after this life for repentance or remission of sins: for this should be the end and intendment of our prayer, that they might be released of their sins, and eased of their pain. There is no remission of sins after death, because there is no true repentance: repentance there is none, because there can be no amendment of life, which always followeth repentance: for John the Baptist that was a preacher of repentance, bid not only the people to repent, but to bring forth fruits worthy repentance, Math. 3.2.8. So saith the Prophet Ezekiel, If the wicked will return from his sins, and do the thing that is lawful, he shall live and not die, 18.21. There are two parts then of repentance, as Isaiah saith, Cease to do evil, learn to do well, 1. Isaiah. 16.17. But there is no place of working out of the body: Ergo, then no repentance.
To this Augustine agreeth: Non est apud inferos poenitentia ad salutem proficiens, ecce nunc tempus est salutis, nunc tempus remissionis. In hac vita poenitentiae tantum patet libertas, post mortem nulla correctionis est licentia: De tempor. serm. 66. In hell, or among the dead, there is no repentance unto salvation: behold now is the time of salvation, the time of forgiveness: In this life only have men liberty to repent, after death there is no place for amendment. What is become now (I pray you) of your Purgatory repentance? after this life there is no salvation to be had, because there is no remission of sins: no remission of sins, because there is no repentance: there is no repentance, because there is no amendment.
Rhemist. Our Savior saith, Math. 12.32. that blasphemy against the spirit shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor the world to come: Ergo, some sins may be forgiven in the world to come.
Ans. Mark expoundeth Matthew: He saith, It shall never be forgiven, Mark. 3.29. So that not to be forgiven either in this world or the world to come, is nothing else, but never to be forgiven: for if it be not forgiven in this life, it shall never be forgiven.
Bellarm. Yea, but Matthew must expound Mark, because he setteth it down more fully, and Mark doth but abridge the Gospel written by S. Matthew, De Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 4.
Ans. But why should not Mark rather expound Matthew, seeing he writ after him? and we use to expound the former writers by the later, not contrariwise.
AN APPENDIX OR AN APPERTINENCE TO this part, concerning the burials and funerals of the dead.
THere are certain points, wherein there is no great variance or dissension between us. First, we confess, that it is meet and convenient, that the bodies of Christians, being departed, should after a seemly and comely manner be brought to the grave: as David commendeth the men of Jabesh Gilead, for burying the body of Saul, 2. Sam. 2.5. The brethren also took the body of Stephen & buried it, Act. 8.2. Secondly, it is not to be denied but that lamentatiō and sorrow may be made for the dead, observing S. Paul's rule, that We mourn not as those that have no hope, that is, excessively, 1. Thess. 4.13. where S. Paul doth not simply forbid Christians to sorrow, but not as the Gentiles. The brethrē also made great lamentation for Stephen, Act. 8.2. Thirdly, we do also grant, that according to the diverse customs of coūtreys, it is not unlawful to use some comely rites and ceremonies in the burial of the dead; not for religion, but for orders sake: as among the Israelites, the mourners were wont to go about in the streets, Ecclesiast. 12.5. And Christ commended the woman in the Gospel, for anointing of him against his burial, Mark. 14.
But beside these points by us confessed, and acknowledged; there are other more weighty matters, as touching the order of funerals, wherein we worthily and justly dissent from our adversaries.
[error 16] 1 They do attribute much to the places where men are buried, as in Churches, and Churchyards, but especially under the Altar, Rhemist. as the souls of the righteous do rest in Christ, who is that altar, under the which the Apostle saw the souls of Martyrs: so for the correspondence to the place in heaven, their bodies are commonly laid under the altar, where the sacrifice of the body of Christ is daily offered, Annot. Apocalypse. 6. verse. 9.
Ans. The altar of the Cross was the only place where the body of Christ was sacrificed: neither need it to be often offered in sacrifice, but it sufficed once only to have been done, Heb. 9.25.27. And in the Communion, we acknowledge no sacrifice, but of praise and thanksgiving. Heb. 13.15. It is kept only in remembrance of the death of Christ, 1. Cor. 11.25. And how should it be available for the dead, seeing it profiteth not all the living, but only those that are present, which do eat and drink the holy elements of bread and wine in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ given and shed for them? So saith the scripture, Do this, as oft as you do it, in remembrance of me, 1. Cor. 11.25. The doers therefore, agents, and receivers, have the present benefit, not they which are absent: how then can the dead receive any solace by it? It profiteth then not a whit to be laid in Churches, or Churchyards, or other hallowed places, as they call them: for all places are alike: neither helpeth it the dead to be buried in one place more then another: for God shall command the sea, and all other places to give up their dead, Apocalypse. 20. The very heathen did confess as much: one saith, It skilleth not, humíne, an sublime putrescam: whether I rot under, or above the ground. And another thus writeth, Coelo tegitur, qui non habet vrnam: Heaven is a covering to him that hath no other coffin. It were a foul shame then for Christians, to exceed the very Gentiles in their superstitious conceits. Augustine saith, Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura preciosa, oberit pio vilis, aut nulla: If sumptuous funerals profit the wicked, then homely or no burials do hurt the godly. Therefore as it helpeth not a wicked man to be buried in one place, more then another, so it doth not hinder or hurt the godly and righteous man.
2 We condemn also their superstitious ceremonies which they use at their [error 17] funerals, as the burning of Tapers, which signifieth, say they, that the souls of the dead are alive, Bellarm. de purgator. lib. 2. cap. 19.
Ans. First, this superstitious use of setting up candles, was directly forbidden in the Elibertine Council, Canon. 34. Of the like sort also were other superstitious usages, as the going about of the belman to will the people to pray for their souls, the ringing or jangling of bells to bring their souls to heaven, with queere songs and other melody to commit the bodies to the ground, and commending their souls to the protection of Saints. We deny not, but comely and decent orders, void of superstition, may be used, according to the fashion of the country: as Jacob's body was embaulmed after the manner of the Egyptians, Genes. 50.2. At the burial of their Kings, the Israelites used to burn odors, Jer. 34.5. The Jews manner was to wash the bodies of the dead, to wind it up in a linen cloth, and bury it with spices and odors: So our Saviors body was buried after the manner of the Jews, John 19.40. We read also that Joseph was put into a coffin or chest, Genes. 50.26. Of these and the like customs, Augustine giveth a rule, writing upon those words in the Gospel, John 19.40. As it was the manner of the Jews to bury: Non mihi videtur Euangelista sic frustra dicere voluisse: ita quippe admonuit, in huiusmodi officijs, quae mortuis exhibentur, morem cuius{que} gentis esse seruandum: in Iohann. tract. 120. Me thinketh the Evangelist said not thus without cause: hereby letting us to understand, that in performing such duties of burial to the dead, the manner and custom of every country is to be kept.
The Jews also had a custom, with some company or frequency of people, to bring their dead to the ground, Eccle. 12.5. And in the while, to use some admonition to the people concerning death and mortality which came in by sin, and of the wrath and mercy of God. Syrus. interp. in Mark. 14.3. Neither do we see, why it is not lawful now among Christians, at funerals and burials, to have some godly sermon and exhortation, to put the people in mind of their end, and to comfort them with the hope of the resurrection, as also to give God thanks, for those his faithful servants, that did glorify him by their life, and by their godly departure. This seemeth also to have been the commendable custom of the Church in ancient time: as Augustine writeth thus, Exposit. in Psal. 103. part. 1. Pauca nos cogit dicere temporis angustia, quod & nouit charitas vestra debere vos exequijs fidelis corporis solenne obsequium. The shortness of the time causeth me to be brief, and you know, that we are to perform a solemn duty to the body of our faithful brother. The sermon seemeth to have been made at some funeral. The Jews also, the burial being ended, did comfort those that mourned, and eat and drank with them, and gave them the cup of consolation, Ierem. 16.7. John 11.31. Both which customs may be kept and retained without any superstition. But other customs and ceremonies, that do savor of impiety, and do any way imply prayer or commendation of the souls of the dead, ought to be left and abolished.
3 Another abuse in popish funerals, is their superstitious and often remembrance of the dead: for they have their weeks mind for the dead the seventh [error 18] day, nay their half weeks mind the third day, their months mind the thirtith day: and beside, their anniuersarie or years mind. I pray you what need all this? Where do they find, that we should mourn for the dead a month, thirty days together, much less a whole year? Joseph mourned but seven days for his father, Genesis 50.10. So did the Gileadites for Saul, 1. Samuel 31.13. The Egyptians in deed mourned threescore and ten days, when Joseph mourned but seven: that we may see a manifest difference between the moderate mourning of the faithful, and the excessive lamentation of infidels. But the popish years minds do far exceed the Egyptians stinted mourning: there being five times 70. days in a year. Yet yearly stipends, erected for weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly sermons we mislike not: being ordained for the instruction of the people, without any relation to the souls of the dead, otherwise, then to give God thanks for them, and those good things which the Lord wrought by them.
[error 19] 4 They do greatly err and are deceived, in holding it to be a meritorious work, which is performed in the burial of the dead: alleging to this purpose that place, 2. Sam. 2.5. where David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead, saying, Blessed are ye of the Lord, that you have shown such kindness unto your Lord Saul and have buried him: therefore now the Lord show mercy and truth unto you, Bellarm. cap. 19.
Answer. There can be no such conclusion gathered out of these words: The Lord will show mercy, according to his truth and promise, to those that are merciful: